SHEIKH SUBHAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE LALITPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 19.8.2011 passed in Small Causes Revision No. 8 of 2008 is liable to be set aside for the reason that while exercising the revisional powers under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court's Act the Revisional Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal and re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties even after such evidence was ignored by the Trial Court. According to him, while exercising jurisdiction under section 25 of the Act, in case, the Revisional Court finds that the Trial Court has failed to consider the material or relevant evidence on record and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Trial Court are illegal the course for the Revisional Court is to remand the matter back by issuing specific directions and guidelines for the Trial Court. According to him, the mere fact that the statute provided a Revision clearly establishes that the Revisional Court cannot exercise the appellate powers and record findings of fact. He has places reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Smt. Angoori Devi, 1984 10 AllLR 281 as also on a decision of this Court in the case of Laxmi Kishore and another v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545. Sri A.N. Sinha assisted by Sri Ashish Srivastava have appeared by caveat on behalf of the respondent-landlord. Sri Sinha has contested the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and places reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Israr Ahmad v. Haji Shafiq Ahmad,2011 1 ARC 194and states that the Revisional Court under section 25 of the Act is justified in examining the evidence which has not been examined by the Trial Court specially when such evidence goes to the root of issue. He also places reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Karim Ullah v. III Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others,1988 1 ARC 521as also a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mundri Lal (Shri) v. Smt. Sushila Rani and another, 2007 69 AllLR 477.

(2.) In reply, Sri Agrawal has submitted that the ratio of the decision has to be seen on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. He states that the above decisions cited by learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The submission of learned Counsels would require examination in light of the decisions cited by them in their relation to the facts and circumstance of the present case and, therefore, it would be appropriate that the respondent-landlord may file counter-affidavit within three weeks and the petitioner may file rejoinder-affidavit within two weeks thereafter. List the stay application for orders after five weeks.