Civil Revision No.4695 of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4695 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision:04.08.2011 Jaspal Singh ....petitioner Versus Smt.Pushpa Sharma .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 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.L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): Petitioner, by way of this petition, has challenged the impugned order dated 27.04.2011, whereby an application to place on record the original documents (i.e.a legal notice and a demand notice, photo copy of which had already been placed on record, while submitting the affidavit of the respondent in his examination-in-chief), has been allowed. Challenging the aforesaid order, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though the Court had the authority to allow the aforesaid documents to be taken on record, but no reasonable cause has been shown, while doing so. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. While passing the impugned order, the Rent Controller, Civil Revision No.4695 of 2011(O & M) 2 Amritsar has observed as under: After hearing both the counsels and after going through the file I am of the considered opinion that although as per Order 7 Rule 14, it has been described that the applicant sues upon the documents in her possession and she shall produce it in the Court when the applicant is present or which has also been mentioned under Order 13 Rule 1 that the documentary evidence to be produced at the time of settlement of the issues, it has regard the facts of the present case is concerned. The applicant admitted that during the cross-examination when the documents has already been exhibited it transpires that the original documents were not placed on file then she moved the present application, although by producing the documents available with the applicant at the time of evidence and this is difficult to say that those documents were never seen in the light of the day as the photo copy of the house tax bill was already on the file and the other documents will be subject to its proved by the present application. However, the applicant produce the present documents at belated stage then the applicant to be penalized with some cost. Hence, application filed by the applicant is allowed subject to cost of Rs.600/-. Earlier the case was fixed for cross examination of applicant witnesses. Now to come up on 10.06.2011 for cross examination of applicant witnesses and for payment of cost.” Keeping in view the fact that the evidence of the landlord- Civil Revision No.4695 of 2011(O & M) 3 respondent is still continuing and thus no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, at this stage. I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 04.08.2011 neenu