RAJ KUMAR DEEWAN Vs. RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18. 12. 2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal whereby his application for placing on record three documents has been rejected on the ground that along with the application for eviction, the petitioner had produced 34 documents and when the application was filed for leading secondary evidence in respect of Ex. 11a, the petitioner has filed application under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC which was rejected and the application for production of secondary evidence of the respondent was allowed. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition which was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4117/2008 and the same was dismissed on 1. 9. 2008.

(2.) I have considered the aforesaid submission of the petitioner and in my view the appropriate time for placing those three documents on record was when the petitioner filed reply to the application for leading secondary evidence and claimed that Ex. 11a is forged document.

(3.) IN the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Rent Tribunal has acted within its para meters and has not committed any kind of error of jurisdiction which is required to be rectified under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In case the right of cross-examination has already been given