C.R. No. 6602 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.R. No. 6602 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2010 Pritam Singh ....Petitioner Versus Avtar Singh ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Kant Setia, Advocate for the respondent. ... Alok Singh, J. (Oral). Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar acting as Appellate Authority under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, thereby dismissing two applications of the petitioner, one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the petition and the second under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission of the Appellate Court to produce additional evidence during the appeal. By way of proposed amendment, the petitioner wants to mention correct municipal number of the property in question without C.R. No. 6602 of 2008 2 changing the description of the property and he further wants to correct the typographical mistake in the replication. By correcting municipal number without changing the description of the property and by correcting typographical mistake in the pleading, it cannot be said that the nature of the suit or cause of action would change and further it cannot be said that any irreparable loss would be caused to the defendant. Amendment seems to be formal in nature which ought to have been allowed. However, the Appellate Court committed jurisdictional error while rejecting the amendment application. By way of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, petitioner wants to produce as an additional evidence the judgement passed in another litigation during the pendency of the appeal. Any evidence which was not in existence could not have been filed during the trial. What would be the relevancy of the evidence has to be seen at the time of disposal of the appeal. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the First Appellate Court ought to have allowed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC permitting the applicant to place on record certified copy of the judgement which was passed during the pendency of appeal in another litigation. In view of the above, impugned judgement cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Present petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed Both the applications filed by the petitioner stand allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to the respondent. Costs shall be paid within two weeks from today. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 02.07.2010 sk.