Civil Revision No.945 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.945 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:07.09.2011 Sandeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus Kulwant Singh ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. R.S.Rekhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the respondent. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 whereby applications of the petitioner-landlord- Sandeep Singh to implead Pritam Singh-his father as co-applicant/petitioner and his prayer to prove a 'Panchayatnama' dated 15.3.2003 by way of secondary evidence has been declined. The petitioner filed an ejectment application against the respondent on various grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with under Order 6 Rule 17 to implead his father-Pritam Singh as petitioner No.2 and also to make amendment in the ejectment application by incorporating the following paragraphs:- Civil Revision No.945 of 2011 (O&M) 2 “That the respondent undertook to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month by executing the agreement i.e. Panchayatnama dated 15.03.2003 from the date of execution of agreement (panchayatnama) dated 15.03.2003 to pay the rent from the date of its execution. He further agreed to enhance the rent at the rate of 5% after every two years. It was also agreed that the respondent will pay the house tax in equal shares with the petitioner. That the respondent undertook to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. on 15.03.2003. He further agreed to pay the increased rent at the rate of 5% after every two years and thus the respondent is liable to pay the rent at the above said increased rate of rent but the respondent has failed to pay or tender the same in spite of repeated demands made by the petitioner.” Petitioner also moved an application to allow him to prove execution of the aforesaid Panchayatnama dated 15.03.2003 by way of secondary evidence as according to him the original of the said documents was lost. Vide impugned order, both of the aforesaid prayer has been declined. While passing the impugned order, the Rent Controller, Amritsar observed as under:- The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent on various ground which does not mention the factum of any said panchayatnama to have been executed on 15.03.2003 and in fact ejectment sought on the grounds of arrears of rent initially payable at the rate of Rs.375/- and to have been increased to Rs.500/-, accordingly secondary evidence sought to Civil Revision No.945 of 2011 (O&M) 3 be led for proving panchayatnama dated 15.03.2003 which is earlier in time than the present petition, which does not find mention in the pleadings of the plaintiff and the same having been filed after a long gap i.e the present petition having been filed in 2004 and the present application being filed in the year 2008. As such under the circumstances secondary evidence cannot be allowed to be led qua the alleged panchayatnama to adjudicate the controversy between the parties and accordingly application filed by the petitioner, for leading secondary evidence qua panchayatnama dated 15.03.2003 being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. The respondent in his pleadings from the very beginning has taken the plea the the petitioner was not landlord of the respondent and in fact rent was being tendered to Pritam Singh where this was initial stand of the respondent throughout and no steps being taken by the petitioner to rectify this fact. At this stage where present petition relates to the year 2004, petitioner cannot be said to have not been in knowledge of this fact earlier and the present amendment sought for by the petitioner being within his knowledge at the time of filing of the petition, same cannot be allowed to be incorporated at this stage and the application under consideration is ordered to be dismissed.” It is a matter of record the present petition pertains to the year 2004 and the factum of the existence of the documents dated 15.03.2003 was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner was not having the knowledge of this fact earlier and the present amendment sought for by the petitioner being within his knowledge Civil Revision No.945 of 2011 (O&M) 4 and thus the amendment at the time of filing of the petition cannot be incorporated at this belated stage. So far, as prayer of the petitioner to implead Pritam Singh as co-petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be granted as no one can be forced to litigate against his own wishes. Here, the prayer made is that Pritam Singh be impleaded as a co-petitioner whereas Pritam Singh himself is not forthcoming with the said prayer. Since the document dated 15.03.2003, sought to be proved by way of secondary evidence is beyond pleadings and cannot be looked into evidence, it will be of no use to allow the petitioner to prove such a document by way of secondary evidence at this stage. In this view of the matter, no error found in the impugned order. However, keeping in view the fact that the instant ejectment application is pending since 2004, therefore, Rent Controller, Amritsar is directed to disposed of the case within one year from today. No merit. Dismissed. September 7, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE