BHOOP SINGH Vs. AMAR NATH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th November, 1982, vide which the learned Rent Controller Faridkot allowed the application of the landlord respondent to lead additional evidence.

(2.) An application for ejectment of the present petitioner (tenant) was filed by the respondent (landlord) on 6th August, 1981. The issues were framed on 8th October, 1981 and the evidence of the landlord was closed on 17th September, 1982. The tenant-petitioner also closed his evidence on 8th July, 1982. Final arguments were heard on 1st October, 1982 and the judgment was reserved and the case was posted for orders for 6th October, 1982. On that date, the application for leading additional evidence was given by the landlord-respondent, which was allowed by the Rent Controller.

(3.) Such an application after the arguments are finally heard cannot be allowed in routine unless a cogent reason is shown by the applicant. In the application for additional evidence the landlord has given no cogent reason as to why he could not produce the additional evidence at the initial stage. He also could not show that such evidence was not within his knowledge and could not be produced after exercise of due diligence at the time the evidence was led. In my view, in the absence of any reason, the application for leading additional evidence could not be allowed after the evidence was closed by the parties and the case was posted for final orders. Accordingly, the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and impropriety and the same cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.