Civil Revision No.5440 of 1997 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5440 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.02.2009 Vinod Kumar .............. Petitioner Vs. Om Parkash Chawla ............Respondent Present: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. At the time when the matter was called, there is no representation either for the revision petitioner or for the respondent. 2. The order is being passed on perusal of the records. An application had been filed by the applicant in the Rent Appeal No.44 of 1995 seeking for reception of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The Court found even before taking up the main appeal for disposal, there was no justification for filing the documents as additional documents. 3. I find that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority was clearly wrong and opposed by the law on the subject. The application for reception of additional evidence shall be considered along with the objections filed by a party who is interested in opposing the same only at the stage of consideration of the main appeal itself. The application cannot be taken prematurely earlier than the date when the appeal is fixed for hearing. I, therefore, set aside Civil Revision No.5440 of 1997 (O&M) -2- the order of the Appellate Authority and direct that, if the appeal has not already been disposed of, to consider the application filed for reception of additional evidence along with the objection, at the time of rendering the final judgment in appeal. 2. Civil revision petition is allowed in above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE February 18, 2009 Pankaj*