RAMESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against an order dated 3.9.2009 by which an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 has been allowed by the Revisional Court and also the order dated 6.11.2009 by which the application for recall of the aforesaid order has been rejected.

(2.) It appears that the landlord instituted Suit No. 76 of 2001 against the petitioner-tenant on the basis of arrears of rent and material alteration etc. After the parties had led their evidence and the matter was ripe for arguments, the landlord filed an application before the Trial Court for admitting further evidence which was rejected and the same was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 9338 of 2007. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 23.2.2007 with liberty to the petitioner to raise the grievance, if necessary, in the appeal after decision by the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it is not a case of denial of title and there was no material alteration against which the revision No. 213 of 2007 was filed and during its pendency, in pursuance of the writ order of this Court an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 was filed which has been allowed.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Revisional Court cannot accept additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 and even if it does so, the relevancy and necessity have to be recorded. A Division Bench of our Court in the case of Virendra Singh Kushwaha v. 7th Additional District Judge, Agra, 1996 28 AllLR 185 on a reference by a Single Judge has held that there is no bar of taking additional evidence by the Revisional Court in exercise of its power under section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act. However, in the same judgment it has been held that additional evidence cannot be taken unless it is demonstrated to be relevant to decide the real controversy and its admission is required in the interest of justice and meets the requirements of the provisions? A perusal of the impugned order shows that in fact no reasons have been given or admitting the evidence except for the fact that the High Court had given liberty to the landlord to raise such a point in the revision. The High Court did not at all advert to this aspect and therefore, the Revisional Court was duty bound to have recorded a finding with regard to the relevancy of the documents in deciding the real controversy between the parties which was sought to be brought on record.