MOHAMMAD AHMAD Vs. IIIRD ADDL CIVIL JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Yog, J. Ifran Ahmad Plaintiff (Respondent No. 2) filed Original Suit No. 83 of 1979 in the Court of Munsif, Hawaii, Saharanpur against Mohammad Ahmad, Defendant (present petitioner); copy of plaint has been filed as Annexure-1. Plain tiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 was tenant over the property in dispute, a shop situate Qasba Chilkana, Pargana Sultanpur, District Saharanpur at the rate of Rs. 10. He claimed decree for ejectment and possession, arrears of rent and damages and other usual reliefs. After Defendant was served and par ties had led evidence, Trial Court dis missed the suit vide judgment and order dated 28th November, 1987 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition ). The plaintiff being, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1981.

(2.) IT is interesting to note that none of the parties raised objection regarding jurisdiction; i. e. , the plaintiff's suit, on the face of it being between the landlord and tenant was cognizable only in Small Causes Court. Be that as it may be, during appeal an application was filed for filing additional evidence in the light of the amendment in the pleadings. Copy of the application dated 13th July, 1986 for seeking amendment of the plaint during the pendency of the appeal has been annexed as Annexure CA-1.

(3.) IT will be noted that clause (aa) of Order XLT, Rule 27 (1), Code of Civil Procedure provides a party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after exercise of due diligence, be produced and again clause (b) of the said provision further contemplates that if Appellate Court re quires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other sub stantial cause the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced. Pleadings have been amended. Good ground showing sufficient cause is made and no fault can be found with the impugned order. Accordingly writ petition lacks merits and it is, accordingly dismissed. No costs. Considering the facts that appeal has remained pending in view of the interim order dated 20th January, 1988 of this Court, I direct the Appellate Authority to decide the case as expeditiously as pos sible. Petition dismissed. .