R.S.A No. 1558 of 2008(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.4930-C of 2008 and R.S.A No. 1558 of 2008 Date of decision : December 12, 2008 Col Malkiat Singh (Retd) & others ...... Appellants. through Mr.Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate v. State Bank of Patiala ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against that portion of the judgments of the Courts below which declined recovery of damages for use and occupation and damage to the building in dispute. The main reason which weighed with the Courts below in declining relief to the appellants is the fact that the appellants led no evidence to show what would have been the rate of damages to which they were entitled. Counsel for the appellants countered by arguing that there was oral evidence of two persons as well as a photostat copy of the lease deed of the adjoining shop, which was placed on record as `Mark-A'. In my opinion, no infirmity can be found with the judgments of the Courts below, since oral evidence cannot be considered as satisfactory R.S.A No. 1558 of 2008(O&M) ::2:: evidence to prove the rate of rent in the adjoining area. As regards `Mark- A', suffice it to say that it was open to the appellants to have produced a certified copy of the lease deed, if they wanted to avail any benefit therefrom. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the appellants have also filed C.M No.4930-C of 2008 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC for placing on record/prove the lease deed dated 8.1.2007 whereby the respondent-bank has taken neighbouring premises at a monthly rent of Rs.1.10 lac. In my opinion, this application cannot be allowed for two reasons. Firstly, the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC have not been made out and, therefore, this is a clear attempt to fill up a lacuna. Secondly, the damages which the appellants could at best be entitled to would have been the difference between the rent being received by the appellants and the rent being received for similar properties at the time of notice i.e in the year 1999. This lease deed dated 8.1.2007 could have no bearing on the amount of damages which are being sought to be claimed from the appellants. Consequently, the present application and the appeal are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 12 , 2008. JUDGE `kk'