JUDGMENT
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. Petitioner is a tenant and respondent is a landlord. Respondent has filed a rent petition for eviction. The same is pending before the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. As per the admitted case of the parties, both the parties had led the evidence and when the case was pending for judgment, the respondent gave an application for additional evidence. The same was allowed. .The petitioner filed revision petition against the said order which was dismissed in limine. Now this is an application for review of the order passed in revision petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner argued that though this Court had considered some authorities, he has got some more authorities in his favour and, therefore, the order in revision petition be reviewed. This, of course, cannot be said to be a ground for review and the review application can be dismissed on this point alone. However, in view of the fact that counsel for the petitioner has cited some authorities. I would discuss these authorities.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Shri Madan Mohan Aggarwal v. Smt. Mansadevi, (1985-2) 90 P.L.R. 206. In that case it has been held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that when the trial permitted the respondent to lead additional evidence after the arguments were concluded, it was an error of procedure committed by it and the High Court has jurisdiction to correct that error.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited before me the case of Ram Gopal Bansarsi Dass v. Satish Kumar, (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 277. It was held therein that application for additional evidence was made after the arguments had been concluded and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application. However, there is a subsequent judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Hazara Singh v. Bachan Singh, (1998-2)118 P.L.R.765. It has been held in that Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not define the stage at which the provisions can be invoked to move an application for additional evidence. It was further held therein that when there is failure of justice, revision could lie to the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited in his petition the case reported as (1983-2) P.L.R. 248. However, the P.L.R. Volume of that year is having only one volume and there is no judgment starting at page 248. There is a case of a Division Bench of this Court in Amar Singh v. Sheo Narain, 1993(1) Rev.L.R. 98. It was held in that case that the lower Appellate Court committed error in not allowing the production of Collectors order in additional evidence as the same was very necessary for the proper adjudication of the case.
5. When the revision petition was decided reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1526 which deals with the question of additional evidence which could be decided at the appellate state also. On reading the case of K. Venkataramiah along with Hazara Singh (supra) one cannot say that additional evidence cannot be allowed because the evidence is closed and that the party may go in appeal and at that time may make a prayer for additional evidence. Here, in the present case, the respondent-landlord has asked for additional evidence on three grounds:
(i) In the month of January, 1998, wife of the respondent had been appointed as Office Administrator in M/s Chenab Investment and Credit Limited, S.C.O. No. 137-138, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Since then she is living in House No.291, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.
(ii) The respondent has been offered an appointment against the post of Manager in M/s Partham Exports Limited, Sector 8, Chandigarh.
(iii) In the second week of May, 1998, petitioner-tenant had approached the persons, who deal in the sale and purchase of the properties to make a statement in the Court of the effect that the respondent had approached them to facilitate the selling of house in question and that they refused to oblige the petitioner.
6. The trial Court has observed that it was an application to lead additional evidence in regard to subsequent events.
7. In view of the law laid down in the case of Hazara Singh and K. Venkataramiah (supra), there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Also there is no reason to review the order passed in the revision petition.
8. Dismissed.