PUROLATOR INDIA LIMITED Vs. KATARIA INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed to assail the order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P1), passed by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon, whereby he has rejected the application of the Petitioner/tenant that the affidavit, filed by landlord-Jasbir Singh Kataria, be excluded from consideration as the documents relied upon were found to have given different exhibit numbers and would create a confusion and the tenant be permitted to file a fresh one.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the document, earlier assigned Annexure-A, has now been exhibited as Ex.P4/5 and similarly, document assigned Annexure-B, has been exhibited as Ex.P4/2. He has further submitted that in all, six documents have been given different exhibits. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the statement made by learned Counsel for the Respondent wherein this fact was admitted. However, the Rent Controller has rejected the application, by observing as under:

(3.) The exhibit number is assigned to the document for convenience of the Court. If the Court can decide the matter without any confusion and there is no prejudice made to the party to the proceedings that discretion, so exercised by the Rent Controller, cannot be disturbed by the Revisional Court.