Back
1983 Supreme(P&H) 19
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S.Bains, J.
Bhoop Singh
Versus
Amar Nath Jain
Civil Revision No. 3307 of 1982,
Decided On : JANUARY 10, 1983
An application for additional evidence cannot be allowed after final arguments unless a cogent reason is shown.
Headnote:
Additional Evidence - Rent Control - The court set aside the order allowing the landlord to lead additional evidence, stating that such an application cannot be allowed after final arguments unless a cogent reason is shown, and in the absence of any reason, the application could not be sustained.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant. After the evidence and final arguments, the landlord applied to lead additional evidence, which was allowed by the Rent Controller.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for additional evidence could not be allowed after the evidence was closed and the case was posted for final orders, as no cogent reason was shown by the landlord.
Issues: The issue was whether the order allowing the landlord to lead additional evidence after final arguments was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that such an application cannot be allowed in routine unless a cogent reason is shown, and in the absence of any reason, the application could not be sustained.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order allowing the landlord to lead additional evidence, and the petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
A.S.Bains, J.
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.
4. Consequently, this petition is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs as nobody is present on behalf of the respondents in spite of service. Petition allowed.
