CIVIL REVISION NO.2815 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 15, 2008 Deepak Rishi and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Behari Lal Charitable Trust and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer of the petitioners for leading additional evidence stands declined. The revision has been filed to impugn the said order. The application for leading additional evidence was filed by the petitioners, at the time when the case was fixed for final arguments. The ejectment petition is filed by the respondent-Trust on the ground that the petitioners are sub-tenants. The stand of the petitioners is that they are not the sub-tenants and this petition for ejectment as filed is on false grounds. It is disclosed that the petitioners had earlier filed a petition under Section 6A of the CIVIL REVISION NO.2815 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act for depositing the rent and the Rent Controller, Ambala. Vide his judgment dated 7.5.1999 had held the petitioners to be tenants in the house. It is then stated that these documents could not be produced by the petitioners while in the course of leading evidence as these were misplaced. It is also stated that now the petitioners have retraced the copies of these documents on 15.4.2008 and have, thus, filed application for getting certified copies of these documents. It is accordingly prayed that the petitioners be allowed to produce these documents by way of additional evidence. The prayer of the petitioners ofcourse was opposed by the respondent-Trust. It is reiterated by the respondent that the petitioners are sub-tenants. It is also disclosed that the Trust is not aware if any amount has been deposited by the petitioners and even if any such amount was so deposited, was never withdrawn by the Trust. It is further disclosed in the reply that such an order could not have been passed by the Rent Controller and even if there is any such order passed, it will be a nullity which may not be required to be challenged also. These documents were also not filed by the petitioners alongwith the written statement and now have been disclosed after a lapse of 10 years. It is noticed by the trial Court that provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC stands deleted. The Court has further noticed that the documents even if placed on record would not have any effect on the merits of the case. It is observed by the Court that the documents even if in existence would only disclose self serving admission made CIVIL REVISION NO.2815 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: by the petitioners of which they can not take any advantage. These documents are not of a nature which would bind the Trust- respondent, especially so when it is pleaded by the respondent-Trust that they are not aware of any such order or any amount having been deposited. It is also the case of the respondents that they never withdrew any such amount. The reasons given by the petitioners to wake up after 10 years of the existence of documents, when they are contesting this litigation since 1998, can not be appreciated. It has been rightly observed by the Court that this application is moved only to delay the proceedings. Having regard to these peculiar facts, the application has been rightly dismissed and the impugned order would not call for any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. May 15 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE