HOTI LAL Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KHURJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question to be determined by this Court in this writ petition is as to whether the Trial Court as well as Revisional Court were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners for taking certain additional documents on record after 18 years of the filing of the written statement and framing of issues; and after the evidence of the plaintiff had already been closed.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent No. 3 Smt. Kesar Sharma, who is the owner of the property in dispute, filed suit No. 202 of 1983 against one Jagan Lal (which was the tenant of the property in question) for arrears of rent and eviction from the property in question. The said Jagan Lal contested the suit and filed his written statement on 21-5-1985. The issues had already been framed for the determination of the Court. During the pendency of the case, in August, 1985, said Jagan Lal expired and the names of the petitioners were substituted in his place. The evidence of the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 was closed by the Trial Court on 2-7-2003. On the next date, which was 31-7-2003, the defendant-petitioner filed an application, purported to be under Section 151, C.P.C. praying for accepting certain additional documents in evidence. The said application of the petitioners has been rejected by a detailed order dated 31-7-2003 passed by the Trial Court. The petitioners preferred a revision against the said order, which has also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Khurja, Bulandshahar on 13-10-2004. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri V.K. Birla, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3 and have perused the record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.