JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Having regard to the nature of order this Court proposes to pass, after having gone through the impugned order, pleadings as well as submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, it may not be necessary to give facts in detail, save and except that petitioner being dissatisfied with order dated 23.5.2017 passed by Rent Controller (1) Shimla in Rent Petition No. 10/2 of 2014/10, whereby its application having been filed under Order 8, Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code for placing on record Will of Bawa Rattan Singh, sale certificate dated 1.12.1989, order dated 30.11.1989 passed by Naib Tehsildar Sales, Jamabandis and Misal Hakiyat of the properties owned by petitioner and custodian department, came to be dismissed, preferred present petition under Section 24 Rule 5 of HP Urban Rent Control Act. 2. Perusal of impugned order referred to above suggests that an application under Order 8, Rule 3A CPC came to be filed on behalf of respondent-tenant (hereafter, ''tenant'') for placing on record documents as referred to above. In the aforesaid application, tenant submitted that due to bona fide omission, documents sought to be placed on record, could not be filed at the time of filing of reply, as such same may be taken on record as the same may be necessary for deciding controversy. However, learned Court below, rejected aforesaid prayer having been made on behalf of the tenant on the ground that respondent has placed documents in piecemeal Apart from above, learned Court below, while dismissing application of tenant also concluded that respondent has not rendered proper explanation for not placing documents as have been sought to be placed on record, by way of instant application. 3. Mr. Pankaj Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondent stated that though bare perusal of impugned order itself suggests that tenant is trying to delay the proceedings by filing frivolous applications, but, as a matter of indulgence, this Court can grant one last opportunity of filing document as have been stated in the application, subject to imposition of costs. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that since matter is hanging fire since 2010, appropriate directions may also be issued to the court below to decide the main case, within a stipulated time. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that since matter is hanging fire since 2010, appropriate directions may also be issued to the court below to decide the main case, within a stipulated time. 4. Consequently, in view of aforesaid fair stand having been adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondent, this Court deems it fit to afford one last opportunity to the tenant to conclude his entire evidence on a date to be fixed by learned Rent Controller. This Court has been informed that matter is fixed before the learned Rent Controller on 28.7.2017, on which date, documents as referred to above, would be taken on record and, thereafter, the tenant shall be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the same, in accordance with law. As has been observed above, since matter is pending adjudication since 2010, this Court hopes and trusts that learned Court below will decide the main case expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from today. 5. It is further clarified that tenant would be afforded only one date by the learned Court below to conclude its entire evidence, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the landlord. Needless to say, landlord shall also be afforded opportunity to rebut evidence, if any, led on record by tenant in terms of instant order passed by the Court. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications, are also disposed of. Record of the court below, if any received, be sent back, forthwith enabling learned Court below/rent Controller to do the needful, within stipulated time. Pending applications are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are also vacated. Copy dasti.