RAJIV KUMAR Vs. ANITA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the impugned Judgment dated 26.02.2015 passed by the Ld. Appellate Authority, Rupnagar, apart from a separate order of the same date (Annexure P-12). Vide the order Annexure P-12, the petitioner's application for permission to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed by the Ld. Appellate Authority, which was of the view that sufficient opportunities to lead evidence have been granted to the petitioner-applicant, and also no solid reason had been given in the application for not producing the proposed evidence earlier.

(2.) The Ld. Appellate Authority had also taken notice of the contention of the respondent-landlady that the petitioner-applicant had availed number of opportunities and the eviction application had in this manner been delayed for the period of more than 10 years between 21.08.2003 and 11.07.2014.

(3.) It is highlighted on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the eviction application, the same was at one stage, dismissed in default on 15.02.2008 and was subsequently restored on 04.06.2012, i.e., after more than 4 1/2 years, while the application for restoration was itself filed after a delay exceeding 4 years. As such, it cannot be said that delay occasioned was entirely attributable to the petitioner-tenant.