AMAR NATH Vs. KRISHAN LAL ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure P/4) passed by learned Rent Controller, Fazilka, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 -A CPC for additional evidence has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed the application for additional evidence with regard to the fact that he is owner of the shop in question, which is reflected in the record of Municipal Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgments of this Court in Ram Niwas vs. Kalu Ram and another, : 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 56, Arpana Sharma vs. Rajinder Sharma and others, : 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 958, Ravinder Singh vs. Parkash Singh & Others,, 2009 (5) R.C.R. (Civil) 249, Surender Kumar vs. Vishal Gupta, : 2006 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 836, State of Punjab vs. Partap Singh, : 2009 (5) R.C.R. (Civil) 159 and judgment of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shri Roshan Lal vs. Shri Ram Shrup,, 2013 (2) Civ CC 142 and contended that documentary evidence can be led at any stage, if it is necessary for just decision of the case and the same can be allowed at any time. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the delay in moving the application should not be taken for all purposes including leading of the evidence.

(3.) SO far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is duty bound to rebut the receipt tendered into evidence is concerned, this Court does not intend to make any comment in this regard. However, it is settled law that any document tendered beyond the pleadings cannot be taken into considered.