IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.919 of 2009 Date of decision:29.04.2009 Viram Lamaba ...Petitioner versus Rajender Parsad ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against an order permitting the landlord to give evidence at the stage of rebuttal as regards the quantum of rent which is disputed by the tenant. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant revision-petitioner points out that the issue relating to the quantum of rent had placed the burden of proof correctly on the landlord, on the basis of which the parties went to trial and if the landlord had not availed himself of opportunity of letting in affirmative evidence on an issue where the burden of proof was on him, he shall not permitted to give such evidence in rebuttal. The document which the landlord was trying to summon and prove at the stage of rebuttal was the income tax return of the tenant himself that allegedly contained reference to payment Civil Revision No.919 of 2009 - 2 - of rent of a particular amount by the tenant to the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of this Court in Surjit Singh and others Versus Jagtar Singh and others, reported in 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 537, that a party could not be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue for which the burden of proof was on that party. This decision was rendered while answering a reference, to settle the conflict of decision on this issue. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent answers this argument by reference to decision in Kewal Singh Versus Jagjit Singh- reported in 2008 (1) PLR, where another Judge of this Court has considered Surjit Singh's case (supra) and has observed that whenever justice so demands, the procedural law should be construed liberally to achieve such ends rather than scuffle the parties right at the trial stage and preventing them from leading complete evidence in support of their case. The learned Judge had observed that in such matters, the party guilty of lapse shall be visited with cost to compensate the other side. The learned counsel for the respondent also refers to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Versus Union of India, reported in 2005 (3) RCR (Civil) 530, that considered at length the various amended provisions of the Amendment Act, 2002 and had observed, while referring to the amendment relating to Order 18 Rule 17-A on the subject of additional evidence, that the Court has inbuilt power to permit the parties to produce evidence not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in spite of due diligence. Civil Revision No.919 of 2009 - 3 - 3. While I am bound by the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh's case, I will not have come by violation of the proposition laid down, by allowing the plaintiff the liberty to let in evidence even if it is not in rebuttal but by reopening the case by giving affirmative evidence which is with reference to income tax returns of the defendant himself. While granting such permission since it is not in the nature of rebuttal, the defendant shall have again a right to explain the income tax returns if he so wishes to do and the Court below shall give such opportunity after the plaintiff tenders his evidence and closes his evidence, to the defendant to give evidence before inviting parties to address arguments. Subject to this liberty, the Civil Revision is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.04.2009 sanjeev