IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CR No.3668 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.05.2011 Arun Vig . . .Petitioner Versus Maya Guglani . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.R.K. Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated 06.05.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority by which application filed by the tenant for leading additional evidence has been partly allowed. The tenant made two prayers namely, one for producing copy of house tax assessment register of the Municipal Corporation, Ambala, which was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority subject to payment of `1000/- as costs and secondly for comparing his signatures with his alleged signatures on the rent note Ex.P-1. In this regard, learned Court below had observed that the rent note Ex.P-1 has been proved by the landlord by examining two witnesses. The tenant could have brought on record his admitted signatures of the relevant period, when the alleged rent note Ex.P-1 in the year 1985 was executed, which was not so done and hence the prayer was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has though argued that additional evidence should be allowed as it would not cause any harm to the landlord but to my mind, the additional evidence cannot be allowed as a matter of routine until and unless a strong case is made out for that purpose. In the present case, the tenant has failed to make out any case and is not entitled to fill up the lacuna or the patches of his case in the garb of leading additional evidence, at this stage. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MAY 31, 2011 JUDGE Vivek