BHOLA RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a tenant against whom an order of release of the shop under his tenancy has been passed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Against that order he preferred an appeal. During the course of the appeal he made an application for permission to file additional documentary evidence. That application was allowed on payment of Rs. 200/ - as costs, and the landlord -Respondent was also allowed to file documents in rebuttal. On a later date, the Petitioner again made an application for permission to file some more documents in support of his case. This application has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to file documents again and again. On the same day, the landlord -Respondent was also allowed opportunity to produce oral evidence for proving the documents which he had been allowed to file in rebuttal of the additional documentary evidence filed earlier by the Petitioner. It is against the rejection of the second application for permission to file additional documentary evidence that this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent has invited my attention to a decision in Mukund Chandra Chopra v. XII Additional District Judge, 1984 (2) ARC 342 in which the grievance of the Petitioner against the refusal of the appellate court to allow additional evidence was dealt with. In this context the following observations were made: