J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Kent Controller, Rajpura, dated 15th Oct., 1979, whereby his application for additional evidence has been dismissed.
(2.) On application for fixation of fair rent has been filed by the tenant. petitioner in the Court of Rent Controller, Rajpura, on 25th July, 1978. When the case had reached the stage of arguments, an application for additional evidence was held by the tenant-petitioner, which was dismissed by the rent Controller vice order dated 19th Sept., 1979. It was observed therein that the tenant-petitioner himself has not mentioned as to which additional evidence he wants to adduce. As he did not mention the same in his application, there was no alternative but to dismiss the same. After dismissal of that application, the tenant-petitioner moved another application which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 15th Oct., 1979. Though it has been observed by the learned heat Controller that a party cannot be allowed to lead additional evidence in perpetuity, as there should be some end to the litigation, he has not dismissed the application on that ground alone but on merits as well. The three witnesses which the tenant-petitioner wanted to produce as additional evidence has been discussed by the learned Rent Controller is para 6 of its order, and he has come to the conclusion that there is no ground to believe that these witnesses were not available at the relevant lime. Since no valid explanation was found to exist for allowing the additional evidence, the application was dismissed as such.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Shri-Balwant Singh Vs. Krishan Kumar and another, 1985 R.L.R. 681 , and contended that the additional evidence could not be shut out however negligent the party may be at the appropriate time if it is relevant and necessary for the proper and final disposal of proceedings. Of course, this proposition as such cannot be disputed. In that case the learned Rent Controller has allowed the application and the revision petition against that order was dismissed by the High Court, and, therefore, the said observations were made. The present case is a converse one. Here the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application on merits, observing that there is no ground made out for allowing the additional evidence and in the earlier order dated 19th Sept., 1929, he has held that the application dies not seem to have been made bona fide, because no satisfactory explanation had been given as to why the requisite evidence was not produced by if tenant at the relevant time. As a matter of fact, it will be the question of fact in each case as to under what circumstances the additional evidence should be allowed. If the conduct of the party seeking to produce the additional evidence is such that the Court finds that the application is not a bona fide one, then this Court will not interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.;