Civil Revision No. 6723 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6723 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 Purolator India Limited …Petitioner Versus Kataria Industries …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed to assail the order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P1), passed by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner/tenant that the affidavit, filed by landlord-Jasbir Singh Kataria, be excluded from consideration as the documents relied upon were found to have given different exhibit numbers and would create a confusion and the tenant be permitted to file a fresh one. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the document, earlier assigned Annexure-A, has now been exhibited as Ex.P4/5 and similarly, document assigned Annexure-B, has been exhibited as Ex.P4/2. He has further submitted that in all, six documents have been given different exhibits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement made by learned counsel for the Civil Revision No. 6723 of 2010 2 respondent wherein this fact was admitted. However, the Rent Controller has rejected the application, by observing as under:- “...6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties. It is a matter of fact that different exhibits have been marked over same documents by different PWs. However, the same does not cause any prejudice to the respondents and the documents can be referred to by all exhibits marked on them. Accordingly, application is devoid of merits and is dismissed”. The exhibit number is assigned to the document for convenience of the Court. If the Court can decide the matter without any confusion and there is no prejudice made to the party to the proceedings that discretion, so exercised by the Rent Controller, cannot be disturbed by the Revisional Court. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 13, 2010 “DK”