CR No.221 of 2011 (O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.221 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.02.2011. Sunil Goel ...Petitioner Versus Shardhanand Khuchal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jhajjar by which an application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence for the purpose of producing a degree obtained by the petitioner from some institution of Bihar in order to prove that he is also a BAMS doctor, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the demised premises was in possession of his grandfather who was a BAMS doctor. After his death, his father was put in possession who is also a BAMS doctor. The allegation is that the demised premises was sublet to one Devinder Singh who is a BAMS doctor. In order to prove that there is no sub-letting but Devinder Singh is working in the shop along with the petitioner, now the present application has been filed to produce on record a document to show that the petitioner himself is a BAMS doctor. It is also submitted that the procedure is the handmade of justice and while allowing the application, the respondent can be compensated with costs. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance. The petitioner had filed the written statement on 10.09.2003 in which he has not alleged that either he is doing the BAMS course or has obtained the BAMS degree which is dated 09.04.2003. Had the petitioner been equipped with the BAMS degree, it would have been his first stance in the written statement, but he has only chosen to mention that he is supporting his father in the shop. CR No.221 of 2011 (O&M) -2- **** Moreover, the petitioner has closed his evidence by making a statement on 16.03.2009, whereas the alleged document is in his possession since April 2003, but despite many opportunities having been availed, he did not produce the said document in his evidence and now the application for additional evidence has been filed on 07.11.2009. It is well settled that no evidence could be looked into beyond pleadings and since the pleadings are silent about the degree having been obtained by the petitioner in April 2003, the additional evidence cannot be allowed as it appears to the Court that it is a made up story. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. February 17, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE