1 C.R. No. 2617 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Revision No. 2617 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.10.2009 Urmila Devi --- Petitioner Versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh and others --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL *** PRESENT: Mr. G.S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-plaintiff has prayed for setting aside the order dated 30.4.2009, Annexure P-1, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application moved by her for leading additional evidence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff, who is daughter-in-law of one Ved Parkash, wanted to lead additional evidence in the shape of two affidavits, both dated 9.4.2009, one executed by Kiran Bala alias Kiran Devi another daughter-in-law of said Ved Parkash, and the other by remaining 2 C.R. No. 2617 of 2009 legal heirs of Ved Parkash, who are his sons and daughter, copies of which are placed on record as Annexure P-7 and P-8. The counsel submitted that these documents could not be produced at the time when the evidence was being led by the petitioner and as a matter of fact these affidavits are in the shape of no objection from them with regard to the payment of rent and, therefore, the same are essential for just decision of the suit. The counsel submitted that the trial court was, thus, not justified in declining the prayer of the petitioner for leading additional evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is not disputed that the affidavits of the legal heirs of Ved Parkash, Annexures P-7 and P-8, which are sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, contained on oath assertions of the executants, i.e. the legal heirs of Ved Parkash, father-in-law of the petitioner, in the form of no objection to the effect that they had no objection if the rent of Plinth Nos. 19 and 20 was paid to the petitioner. From the perusal of the record, it is found that the production of affidavits in question is necessary for just decision of the controversy raised in the suit as the defendants had taken an objection in the pleadings that since there are other legal heirs of Ved Parkash, rent of the property in suit could not be given to the petitioner alone. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, could not controvert that the affidavits which are sought to be produced by the plaintiff are not essential for the just decision of 3 C.R. No. 2617 of 2009 the suit. The approach of the trial court in declining the prayer of the petitioner was thus, erroneous. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 30.4.2009 is set aside. The application of the petitioner for leading additional evidence is accepted and it is directed that the trial court shall permit the petitioner to produce on record the aforesaid affidavits by way of additional evidence and prove the same in accordance with law. Since the suit pertains to the year 2002 and is quite old, the trial court shall fix the dates of short intervals and dispose of the suit expeditiously. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) October 29, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*