IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Additional evidence--Public documents--From the documents petitioner wants to prove that value and utility of demised premises is not impaired--Application allowed--Dismissal of application only on the ground that he is trying to delay the proceedings, is unsustainable.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) :- his revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.3.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller, Rajpura, by which an application filed by the tenant/petitioner for leading additional evidence by way of producing on record sanctioned site plan of the construction raised on the demised premises, order of sanctioning the site plan, two statements of the parties in dispute and an order of the Civil Court has been dismissed.

2. The application was filed by the tenant at the time of arguments of the eviction petition after noticing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the landlord that the construction has been raised on the demised premises without the permission of the Municipal Council and is in violation of municipal bye-laws. To overcome that argument, the petitioner moved an application immediately on 21.1.2011 in order to bring on record the additional evidence but the learned Rent Controller dismissed his application on the ground that the petitioner cannot be allowed to fill up the lacunae as he had already closed his evidence on 12.3.2010 and before that, ample opportunities were given. It was also observed that earlier also, he had filed an application for amendment of the written statement which was declined by a detailed order dated 16.7.2010 and the application was filed only to delay the proceedings in the eviction petition which was pending since long.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the application for additional evidence was filed at the stage of arguments but he submits that even at that stage, application for additional evidence could be allowed if the evidence which is sought to be produced goes to the root of the case. He has relied upon following decisions of this Court reported as Jeeto @ Manjit Kaur Vs. Union of India 2008 (2) PLR 147; Chandgi Vs. Mehar Singh & Ors 1998 (2) Civil Court Cases 280 (P&H); Mam Raj Vs. Smt.Sabiri Devi & Ors. 2002 (2) Civil Court Cases 109 (P&H); Basant Raj Vs. Kaushal Kishore 2005 (3) Civil Court Cases 269 (P&H); Charan Singh Vs.Ajit Singh 1999 (Suppl) Civil Court Cases 458 (P&H); Raju Sharma Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors,1999 (2) Civil Court Cases 85 (P&H), and two more judgments i.e. one of Orissa High Court reported as Alekh Pradhan and others Vs. Bhramar Pal and another, AIR 1978 Orissa 58 and other of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as Shivsahay Vs. Nandlal and others AIR 1989 Madhya Pradesh 40.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there is no corresponding pleadings regarding the evidence which is being sought to be produced on record, therefore, in the absence of the pleading, no evidence can be looked into. He has submitted that during the course of arguments when he had cited certain judgments, then at that stage, this application was filed by the petitioner in order to place on record the documents which were well within his knowledge, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be taken on record in the garb of additional evidence as the petitioner’s evidence was already closed on 12.3.2010.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

6. In one of the judgments in Gurdial Singh and others Vs. Mam Chand and others [2011(1) Law Herald (P&H) 23] : 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 690, I have already held that even if the documents were within the knowledge of appellants, Appellate Court can still allow it to be produced on record in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (aa) of CPC if the document is not created or manufactured for the first time after the decision of the suit i.e. any official document whose authenticity is not in dispute and is capable of assisting the Court to take final decision in respect of the dispute between the parties.

7. In this case, the documents which are sought to be produced on record are not coming from the custody of the petitioner rather the two documents are coming from the custody of mun