IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 557 of 2009 Judgment reserved on : 9.3.2010 Date of decision : 5.4.2010 ____________________________________________________ Kuldip Saklani …Petitioner. Versus Chuni Lal & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner : Mr. B.K. Malhotra, , Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge The defendant No,.1 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9.7.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge ( Sr. Division), Mandi in CMA No.64 /09 in C.S. No.34/06, Chunil Lal v. Kuldeep Saklani. 2. The facts in brief are that respondents No.1 and 2 have instituted a suit on 26.4.2006 for recovery of rent Rs.1,08,000/- at the rate of Rs.3000/- P.M. against petitioner and proforma respondent No.3. The petitioner has contested the suit on the grounds that shop in dispute was let out by one Paras Ram, real brother of Puran Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 and 2, as he was co- ______________________ ¹ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 2 owner of the shop in dispute. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has vacated the premises in dispute in August, 2003 and Paras Ram, who inducted the petitioner as tenant has received the entire rent upto August, 2003. The shop in dispute is in possession of Paras Ram and as such petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the rent again on account of dispute between two brothers. 3. Paras Ram real brother of father of respondents No.1,2 had applied for impleading him as party in the ejectment suit on the ground that he inducted the petitioner as tenant and had received rent, but his application for amendment was rejected. It has been alleged that while appearing as witness in the ejectment suit Paras Ram has admitted that after August, 2003 he is in possession of the shop in dispute which fell to his share after partition between him and his brother Puran Chand. 4. Paras Ram had filed CS No.1 of 2009 for declaration against respondents No.1,2 and others in which petitioner and proforma respondent have been made parties. In the said suit, Paras Ram had taken the stand that he is owner of the shop in dispute which was in his possession through various tenants, from time to time and revenue entries to the contrary are not correct. This fact came to the notice of petitioner when he received the summons of CS No.1 of 2009 pending before Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mandi. Thereafter the petitioner had procured the copies of revenue record. The petitioner had filed an application dated 22.5.2009 for additional evidence for proving copy of plaint in CS No.1 of 2009, Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid, copy of mutation No.318, copy of jamabandi for the year 3 1970-71, copy of jamabandi for the year 1997-98, details of electricity meters. This application was opposed by respondents No.1 & 2. The learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application on 9.7.2009. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Civil Judge has erred in dismissing the application for additional evidence. The learned Court below has committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the application. The documents which petitioner intends to prove by way of additional evidence are mostly public documents. The said documents otherwise cannot be manufactured by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. 6. The learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application on the ground of decision in previous litigation. In the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has observed that in the previous litigation the plaintiffs were held to be landlord of the suit premises and defendant No.1 as tenant under them vide judgment dated 1.4.2005, Kuldeep Saklani filed appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 5.3.2007. Thereafter Kuldeep Saklani preferred second appeal which was also dismissed on 8.4.2008. 7. The parameters for leading additional evidence are well known. The additional evidence must assist the Court in determining real controversy between the parties. The evidence of the petitioner was closed on 8.4.1999 and the case was fixed for arguments by the learned trial Court on 29.4.2009, 14.5.2009 but on both dates arguments could not be heard. On 22.5.2009 the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC for additional evidence. The 4 petitioner intends to lead additional evidence with respect to copy of plaint in CS No.1 of 2009 titled Paras Ram vs. Chuni Lal and others, Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid, another copy of Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid, copy of mutation No.318, copy of , Musabi, copies of jamabandies for the year 1970-71 and 1997-98, details of electricity meters in the name of consumer Paras Ram Thakur, account No.BC- 36,BC-37,BC-526. 8. A Copy of judgment dated 1.4.2005 Ex. PB in CS No.70/2000 filed by Puran Chand on 20.8.2000 against Kuldeep Saklani and Bhag Singh is on record. The copy of plaint in CS No.1 of 2009 indicates that the said suit has been filed by Paras Ram against Chuni Lal, Bhupender and Bhag Singh etc. respondents No.1,2 and proforma respondent No.3 herein. Chuni Lal and Bhupender are none else but sons of Puran Chand who was plaintiff in CS No.70/2000 decided on 1.4.2005 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mandi. It has not been pointed out how the documents which petitioner intends to produce by way of additional evidence are relevant, necessary to decide the lis between the parties and how the said document will assist the Court for determining the real controversy between the parties in presence of judgment Ex.PB. The additional evidence is not to be allowed merely on the asking of a party. It is the duty of the Court to consider whether additional evidence will assist the Court for deciding the lis even if, additional evidence is taken on its face value. The petitioner in the application has not stated that additional evidence will assist the Court in deciding the dispute. The CS No.1 of 2009 has been filed by Paras Ram. The averments made by Paras Ram in that 5 suit may be construed his admissions but how those are binding on respondents No.1,2 that has not been explained. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case of error of jurisdiction committed by learned Civil Judge while rejecting the application for additional evidence. 9. No other point was urged. 10. The result of above discussion, the petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of main petition the CMP No.759 of 2009 is rendered infructuous. April 5, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (sks) Judge.