20.02.2025 Manupriya a priya and others v. Raksha Devi a Devi and others
Case Details
CR-1099-20 2025 -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CR-1099-2025 Date of Decision: 20.02.2025 Manupriya a priya and others .…Petitioners Versus Raksha Devi a Devi and others ....Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advoc Advocate for the petitioners. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. The petitioners who are the of re the Legal Representatives of landlord hav rd have filed the present revision peti the on petition under Article 227 of the Constitution itution of India for setting aside (i) ated (i) the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 ( 2025 (Annexure P-1) vide which the 025 ch the application dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P xure P-6) filed by the petitioners for le has for leading additional evidence has been dismiss ismissed; and (ii) the impugned order xure order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) whereb hereby the evidence of the petitione titioners in case RP-28/2007 dated 23.03.2017 t
Legal Reasoning
2017 titled as ‘Smt. Chhaya Sharma evi arma and another vs. Raksha Devi and others’, ’, has been closed by Court orde ller, rt order by the ld. Rent Controller, Karnal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitio petitioners, inter alia, submits that that by way of a y of additional evidence, the petitione lace etitioners have only sought to place on record ce ord certified copies of the plaint, wri and nt, written statement, evidence, and judgment of ent of the previous litigation between and etween respondents No. 1 to 5 and Late Sh. Kai h. Kailash Chander Sharma. It is subm ould s submitted that no prejudice would have been ca een caused to the respondents; wherea ffer whereas the petitioners would suffer RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.25 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-1099-20 2025 -2- an irreparab eparable loss and injury in case, ated case, the impugned orders dated 06.02.2025 a 2025 and 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-1 not 1 and P-2, respectively) are not set aside. It i de. It is contended that the learned Re law Rent Controller has erred on law by ignoring oring the fact that the documents sou y of ts sought to be produced by way of additional e nal evidence are only the certifie itten ertified copies of plaint, written statement, e ent, evidence and judgment of previ ents previous litigation of respondents No. 1 to 5 to 5 with the Late Sh. Kailash Cha h Chander Sharma, predecessor-in- interest of th t of the petitioners and other person ated ersons. The same are authenticated documents. ents. It is argued that in fact the said d the said documents would facilitate the learned trial d trial Court to decide the matter in co acy; r in controversy with more efficacy; and would a ould also help to decide the issues i It is sues in dispute in its entirety. It is stated that th that the petitioner were not in know o. 6 knowledge that respondents No. 6 and 7 could could not tender the said documents in hen ents in their evidence and it is when the petitione titioners came to know of the same, ated same, the present application dated 03.01.2025 2025 (Annexure P-6) was filed by onal d by them for leading additional evidence wi ce without any delay. Accordingly, i the ngly, it is prayed that the both the impugned or ned orders dated 06.02.2025 and 10.1 d 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-1 and P- 2, respective pectively) be set aside and the peti lead e petitioners be permitted to lead additional ev nal evidence. 3. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitione titioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel fo sel for the petitioners and perused the case file se file in great detail. 5. Brief facts of the case are that ave e that respondents No. 6 and 7 have filed Evictio Eviction Petition (Annexure P-3) see ents 3) seeking eviction of respondents No. 1 to 5 fr to 5 from the demised premises descri ard describable as House No. 31, Ward RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.25 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-1099-20 2025 -3- No. 13, Bha 3, Bhatto Wala Mohalla, Gharaunda the unda, District Karnal within the limits of Mu of Municipal Committee Gharaunda. are unda. Respondents No. 6 and 7 are the wife an ife and son of Late Sh. Kailash Ch the ash Chander Sharma; whereas the petitioners a ners are legal heirs/children of Late S rma. Late Sh. Kailash Chander Sharma. Respondents ndents No. 1 to 5 are legal heirs of La The of Late Sh. Jai Parkash/tenant. The demised pre premises were originally owned ari. owned by late Sh. Ram Juwari. However, th ver, the same was maintained and loo lash nd looked after by Late Sh. Kailash Chander Sha er Sharma; and he was declared land ises d landlord of the demised premises by the learn learned Civil Court vide judgment a 017. ment and decree dated 16.02.2017. The petition etitioners and proforma respondents N the ents No. 6 and 7 have inherited the property/dem ty/demised premises upon the death of rma eath of Sh. Kailash Chander Sharma on 08.01.201 .01.2017. However, in the Municipal r ises al records, the demised premises is still record recorded in the name late Sh. Ram Juw am Juwari. 6. It is the case of the petitioners ised tioners that the rent of the demised premises wa ses was assessed @ ₹2000/- per mont and r month since December 2005; and that the resp respondents No. 1 to 5/tenants wer nce, ts were in the arrears of rent since, June2006 til 006 till February 2017. Accordingly, r filed ngly, respondents No. 6 and 7 filed Eviction Pet on Petition dated 22.03.2017 seeking arily eking eviction of tenants, primarily on the groun grounds of (a) non-payment of rent s that f rent since June, 2006; and (b) that the demised mised premises/house is required for re d for residence. 7. Upon notice, written statement xure ement dated 25.10.2017 (Annexure P-4) was fil as filed by respondents No. 1 to 5. NIL to 5. Written statement dated NIL (Annexure P xure P-6) was also filed by the petit rma petitioners herein being proforma respondents dents No. 6 to 8 in the rent petitio sent petition. Subsequently, the present application d ation dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P oner ure P-6) was filed by the petitioner for leading a ding additional evidence to tender cer itten er certified copies of plaint, written RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.25 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-1099-20 2025 -4- statement, e ent, evidence and judgment of previ ents previous litigation of respondents No. 1 to 5 to 5 with the Late Sh. Kailash Cha reto, h Chander Sharma. Reply thereto, dated NIL (A NIL (Annexure P-7) was filed by con 1 to by contesting respondents No. 1 to 5/tenants. Vi nts. Vide impugned order dated 06.02. said 06.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) the said application ation has been dismissed; and v ated and vide impugned order dated 10.12.2024 ( 2024 (Annexure P-2), evidence of the of the petitioner has been closed. 8. It is contended on behalf of th y of f of the petitioners that by way of leading addi g additional evidence, the petitioner h e on ioner have only sought to place on record the c the certified copies of plaint, writ and t, written statement, evidence and judgment of ent of previous litigation of responde Late spondents No. 1 to 5 with the Late Sh. Kailash ailash Chander Sharma. However, per case er, perusal of the record of the case shows that a that ample opportunities have been to been granted to the petitioners to conclude the de their evidence. Vide order dated nity dated 03.09.2024, last opportunity was granted ranted to the petitioners to lead t last lead their evidence. Another last opportunity tunity was granted to the petitioners o ning ners on 19.09.2024 with a warning that failure ailure would result in closure of the 024, of their evidence. On 21.11.2024, respondents dents No. 1 to 5 closed their evidenc ere vidence; while the petitioners were given even even one more opportunity. Thereafte ated ereafter, vide impugned order dated 10.12.2024 ( 2024 (Annexure P-2), evidence of the it of the petitioners was closed as, it was observe bserved by the learned Rent Con eral t Controller, Karnal that several opportunities tunities had already been availed by th their by the petitioners to conclude their evidence; d ; despite that even one more opportu the pportunity was given to them in the interest of ju t of justice, yet no witness on behalf o ent; ehalf of the petitioners was present; and no plaus plausible ground was made out for g ent. t for granting another adjournment. Thus, keepi keeping in view the fact that seve een t several opportunities have been availed by th by the petitioners, their evidence was ce was closed by Court order. RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.25 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-1099-20 2025 -5- 9. 10. I find no infirmity in the above above said impugned orders. As regards leading additional e ome ional evidence, it has already come on record tha ord that the evidence of the petitioners , tioners stood closed by Court order, therefore, qu ore, question of leading additional evid ver, al evidence did not arise. Moreover, it is the own e own admitted case of the petitioners ht to tioners that the documents sought to placed on re on record by way of additional evid ents l evidence are admitted documents between the en the parties. As such, needless to sa ould s to say, the said documents would have been in in the knowledge of the petitioner itioners. 11. On a Court query, learned coun not d counsel for the petitioners has not been able to ble to inform this Court with regard t the egard to the date of judgment in the previous liti us litigation between the parties. The lear s. Therefore, it is very much clear that the pres e present application has been filed w n an iled without due diligence and in an attempt to fil t to fill the lacunae in the matter, rathe r, rather than genuine necessity. 12. In view of the above undisput sion disputed facts, the instant revision petition, bein , being meritless, is dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, s
Decision
any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 20.02.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.25 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.