IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-733-2024 (O&M)

Decided on:-05.02.2026 Amar Chand Gupta ....Petitioner..

vs.

Om Wati ....Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

1. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller at Faridabad.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

3. As per the record, vide order dated 19.07.2023 passed by this Court in CR-2230-2021 titled as “Om Wati vs Amar Chand”, the prayer made by the respondent-landlady for leading additional evidence was allowed with the following observations:-

“6. The documents sought to produce would definitely help the Court in adjudicating the issue at hand as the title of the demised premises has been specifically denied and disputed by the respondent-tenant in the written statement. All the documents sought to produce are registered documents or the certified copies from the Court record, thus the veracity thereof cannot be doubted. Though, there appears to be some negligence on the part of the petitioner-landlady, however, instead of adopting hyper- technical approach and also to advance the cause of justice, the prayer made in the application for production of aforementioned documents needs to be allowed.

7. Equally important, the rights of the parties cannot be curtailed merely for want of compliance of procedure as the same only regulates the proceedings and can never govern the substantial rights thereof, unless the litigants act in a gross negligent manner.

8. Thus, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the Courts below is hereby set aside and petitioner is permitted to produce the documents recorded and prayed for in her application.”

4. The respondent-landlady, having produced the documents in her additional evidence, sought permission to prove the same, which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide the impugned order dated 29.09.2023. The view expressed by the learned Rent Controller while allowing the prayer was in consonance with the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by this Court in CR-2230-2021 whereby, the respondent-landlady was permitted to lead additional evidence, as such, the learned Trial Court adopted a pragmatic approach by allowing her to prove the documents, which thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, there being no jurisdictional error committed by the learned Rent Controller, the present revision petition being devoid of merits is thus, dismissed.

5. Be that as it may, the respondent-landlady has already led and concluded her additional evidence; it goes without saying that the petitioner- tenant shall be permitted to rebut the additional evidence led by the respondent-landlady. However, taking into account the fact that the eviction petition is pending since 30.10.2017, the learned Rent Controller is requested to expedite the proceedings.

6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

05.02.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)

sonika JUDGE