BABU RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. C. Agarwal, J. Finding a conflict between Sudarshan Pal Singh v. 2nd Addl. District Judge (1980 (UP) RCC 379) and Smt. Kamini Khare v. Ram Naresh (1979) 5 All LR 547) : (1979 All LJ 1263) Hon. N. D. OJha, J. , has referred this case for decision by a larger Bench.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by a tenant against an order of the Additional District Judge refusing to admit additional evidence in the revision filed before him under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to take evidence in revision.

(3.) THE question that next arises is whether additional evidence can be admitted in a case under S. 25 by a Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Section 17, as observed above, requires the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure to be followed in all suits and in all proceedings pending out of such suits. Section 151 is not one of the provisions mentioned in the list excluded from application to the Courts constituted under the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Hence, S. 151, since it has not been excluded, applies, which preserves the inherent powers of the Court. Every Court is constituted for the purpose of doing justice according to law and must, therefore, be deemed to possess as a necessary corollary, and has inherent in its very constitution, all such powers as may be necessary to do the right and undo the wrongs in the course of the administration of justice (1856-6 Moo Ind App 393) (PC ). In fact, Section 151 does not confer but only saves the inherent jurisdiction