IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 2560 of 2007. Date of Decision: 29th January, 2008... Vijay Kumar Petitioner through Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate Versus Ramesn Rani & Ors. ...Respondent through Mr. S.K.Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9th April, 2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawansahar whereby an application filed by respondent No. 1 for leading additional evidence, has been allowed. After both the parties had closed their evidence and the case was mature for arguments, the respondent moved an application to lead additional evidence in the shape of certified copy of Jamabandi for the year 2003-04. The said additional evidence has been taken on record by the Rent Controller after observing that the Jamabandi is a public document which is perse admissible in evidence and “the same is necessary and relevant to decide the controversy”. Civil Revision NO. 2560 of 2007. ::-2-:: It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant and a specific issue in this regard has been framed. The certified copy of the Jamabandi is probably sought to be brought on record in order to show that the sale deed, by virtue of which the respondent is claiming herself to be owner, pertains to the demised premises. In these circumstances, when the Rent Controller has also found that the said evidence is relevant and necessary for the just decision of the controversy between the parties, no case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. To be fair to learned counsel for the petitioner, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Satnam Singh v Devinder Kaur, 2006(4) RCR (Civil), 639 wherein it was held that mere observations in the order that the additional evidence is material evidence without disclosing the relevance thereof, would not render the said evidence as material one. As observed above, in the case in hand, the specific issue as to whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, has already been framed. In these circumstances, the additional evidence sought to be produced by the respondent can not be said to be irrelevant. For the reasons afore-state, this revision petition is dismissed. January 29, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE