Civil Revision No. 6137 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6137 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.11.2008 Harbans Singh …Petitioner Versus S. Tarsem Singh Virdi ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. H.K. Aurora, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) A civil suit is also pending between the parties. Subsequent to closure of landlord and tenant's evidence, evidence recorded in civil suit was sought to be placed on record by the tenant in the eviction petition. The rent petition was instituted in 2001. By tendering on record these documents, the tenant intend to start de novo trial. Learned Rent Controller has noticed that all the documents which have been produced in the civil suit have been in the knowledge of the tenant. Learned Rent Controller has also held that the petitioner had closed his evidence on 30.1.2006, the case was fixed for respondent's evidence and more than two years have been taken by the tenant for leading his evidence and at this stage, application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. Civil Revision No. 6137 of 2008 2 The discretion exercised by learned Rent Controller cannot be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction especially where there is a mandate of Hon'ble the Apex Court that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised sparingly. In Joginder Singla v. Amit Ohri (Civil Revision No. 5587 of 2008 decided on 31.10.2008), I had formulated the following opinion:- “I have also perused Shri M.L.Sethi v. Shri R.P.Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379 wherein revisional powers of the Court under Section 115 CPC (which has been omitted), has been considered along with the judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 675 which spell out powers of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It has been held therein that the powers of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to exercise revisional jurisdiction are unlimited and unfettered but supervisory jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly. It has been further held that this has to be exercised to correct an error which is manifest and apparent and this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 will not correct one view, which is possible on the facts of the case. Guided by the para-meters laid in Surya Devi Rai's case (supra), I do not find any justification to interfere while exercising the Civil Revision No. 6137 of 2008 3 revisional jurisdiction and set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed”. Consequently, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 7, 2008 “DK”