IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 766 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 2, 2011. Pawan Kumar ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Smt.Asha Rani and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against impugned order dated 03.12.2010 passed by Rent Controller, Phagwara vide which prayer of present petitioner/respondents for adducing additional evidence was partly allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. CR No.766 of 2011 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a witness, namely, Gurmeet Kaur is a necessary witness who could not be examined earlier inadvertently and hence, it is prayed that one opportunity may be granted to petitioner to examine the said witness. However, perusal of impugned order passed by Rent Controller, Phagwara shows that the present petitioner/respondents availed 12 effective opportunities for leading their evidence and the evidence was closed by the petitioner/respondents themselves vide statement dated 15.10.2010. Rent Controller in its discretion allowed the present petitioner/respondents to place on record copy of judgment dated 03.11.2010 passed in FIR No.123 dated 20.04.2006 as the said judgment was rendered after closing of evidence by petitioner/respondents. However, petitioner/respondents have failed to make out sufficient cause for examination of another witness, namely, Gurmeet Kaur by way of additional evidence. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 2, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 2