AMRIT LAL Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Hem Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 8.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge/ Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on an application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Appeal No. 176 of 2010 (Amrit Lal vs. Santosh Kumar and others) by which the petitioner's application has been rejected.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner happens to be a tenant in the accommodation in dispute. The landlord has filed a release application under section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against the petitioner. The said application was allowed. Against that order the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 176 of 2010. In the appeal the petitioner has filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC for bringing on record some documentary evidence relating to Suit No. 166 of 2002 (Chinta Mani vs. Rajesh Yadav and others) pending before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Varanasi with respect to the same accommodation on the ground that due to fault of the counsel those documents could not be filed earlier. The appellate court rejected the application taking note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs. M/s Cork Manufacturing Company, 2008 AIR(SC) 56) wherein it has held that for the lack of legal advice of the lawyers, if evidence was not produced, on that ground an application filed under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC cannot be allowed by the appellate court.