IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7728-2025 DECIDED ON: 31.10.2025 RAVINDER SINGH GULATI @ RAVINDER SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS M/S MAHALAXMI GLASS TRADING COMPANY THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AMAN AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Karnal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for production of additional documentary evidence by way of copy of mutation No. 740 and sale deed No. 7091/1 dated 21.12.2020 was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises situated at H.No. 713-R, Model Town, Karnal, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and impairment of the value and utility of the premises. The petition was based on the claim that the petitioner and his co-sharers had inherited ownership rights over the property through a registered Will executed by their mother, late Smt. Amrit Kaur.

3. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the petitioner moved an application before the Rent Controller seeking permission to place on record (i) mutation No. 740 sanctioned on the basis of the aforesaid Will, and (ii) a copy of sale deed No. 7091/1 dated 21.12.2020 allegedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the mother of the respondent in respect of the adjoining shop, which, according to the petitioner, was relevant to disprove the respondent’s plea denying the relationship of landlord and tenant.

4. The learned Rent Controller, vide the impugned order dated 08.10.2025, dismissed the said application observing that the documents sought to be produced were already in the petitioner’s knowledge, that the mutation did not confer any ownership right, and that the sale deed had no direct nexus with the demised premises. It was also observed that the application was moved only at the stage of final arguments and appeared to be intended to delay the proceedings.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Controller has erred in dismissing the application for production of documents which, according to the petitioner, are material for establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is submitted that since the respondent in his deposition denied the factum of sale deed and also questioned the Will, production of the aforesaid documents was necessary for proper adjudication of the case.

7. Since the controversy involved is short and purely procedural in nature, and the matter does not warrant an elaborate hearing, issuance of notice to the respondent has been dispensed with.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case as well as the impugned order.

9. This Court, however, finds no merit in the aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The power to permit production of additional evidence at a belated stage is discretionary and must be exercised only when the party seeking such permission establishes (i) that the evidence was not in its knowledge despite due diligence, or (ii) that the document is indispensable for a just decision of the case. In the present case, both these conditions are conspicuously absent.

10. The mutation order No. 740, which is now sought to be produced, was sanctioned on 03.06.2025, much after the filing of the eviction petition and merely reflects a fiscal entry acknowledging succession based on a Will. It is trite that a mutation entry neither creates nor extinguishes title; it only records changes