Civil Revision No. 6554 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6554 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 31.10.2011 *** Ravi Bhushan .. Petitioner VS. Shyam Sunder .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. An ejectment order was passed against the petitioner-tenant from the shop on the ground of personal necessity of respondent-landlord. He preferred an appeal before the appellate Court below, during pendency whereof he filed an application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence in the shape of assessment register for the year 2001-02 of the Municipal Council, Bhiwani to show that the landlord had two other shops besides the shop in dispute. However, by dint of order dated 20.9.2011 his prayer has been declined, necessitating him to file the instant revision petition. Heard. It is settled that additional evidence can be allowed at any stage, if it appears to the Court that the same could not be produced earlier despite exercise of due diligence and the same is necessary for the just decision of the case. In the case in hand, it is gathered from the perusal of paper book that the landlord took a plea in the petition that he is not having any other shop, except the shop in dispute or has got the same vacated after enforcement of Rent Act. The said averment was simply denied by the tenant in the reply. However, he did not specify the said ground of existence of any other shop, in respect of which he now wants to adduce additional Civil Revision No. 6554 of 2011 2 evidence, which he cannot be permitted to do so in absence of any pleading. Further, the perusal of impugned order reveals that the document sought to be produced by the tenant was having any reflection with regard to ownership of any other shop by the landlord. Thus, finding that the said document is not necessary for the adjudication of the appeal, the Court below rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner. No fault or ambiguity could be found with the approach adopted by the Court below. The instant petition, being without any merit, is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) October 31,2011 JUDGE Jiten