CR No. 942 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 942 of 2009 Date of decision February 20, 2009 Ram Chander ....... Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kumar ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner . **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. Having regard to the nature of the order which is proposed to be passed, I dispense with the notice of the respondent. 2. The revision petitioner sought for leading additional evidence after rebuttal evidence was made by the landlord. It was rejected by the Rent Controller on the ground that the additional evidence which he was seeking to lead could not be given since he had opportunity to examine the case No. RBT 869 of 1998, even when the earlier application had been moved and the opportunity having not been availed, according to him it showed that he was negligent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the observation of the Rent Controller is not correct and that only after the counsel for the landlord gave rebuttal evidence by filing the complaint and CR No. 942 of 2009 2 the statement in case No. 39/2/2005, he had to explain a site plan that become relevant after the evidence was led in by the plaintiff in rebuttal. 4. Procedure is the hand maid of justice. If the party was seeking for a full opportunity at the trial for adducing evidence to explain certain factors, the trial Court shall always grant opportunity unless in its perception it was a ploy to delay the proceedings. Negligence if ever is found, could always be compensated in terms of costs. Denial of such opportunity would subvert the justice. The order of the Court below under challenge is set aside and the tenant shall be allowed to tender additional evidence as sought for by him. This order is passed even dispensing with notice to the respondent in due consideration that full justice is done and that there is no further delay occasioned by issuing notice to the respondent. 5. The Civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 20 , 2009 archana