K S SEHGAL Vs. MAJ CHARANJIV SINGH BACHHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a tenant and respondent is a landlord. Respondent has filed a rent petition for eviction. The same is pending before the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. As per the admitted case of the parties, both the parties had led the evidence and when the case was pending for judgment, the respondent gave an application for additional evidence. The same was allowed. .The petitioner filed revision petition against the said order which was dismissed in limine. Now this is an application for review of the order passed in revision petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner argued that though this Court had considered some authorities, he has got some more authorities in his favour and, therefore, the order in revision petition be reviewed. This, of course, cannot be said to be a ground for review and the review application can be dismissed on this point alone. However, in view of the fact that counsel for the petitioner has cited some authorities. I would discuss these authorities.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Shri Madan Mohan Aggarwal v. Smt. Mansadevi, (1985-2) 90 P.L.R. 206. In that case it has been held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that when the trial permitted the respondent to lead additional evidence after the arguments were concluded, it was an error of procedure committed by it and the High Court has jurisdiction to correct that error.