VIRENDRA SINGH KUSHWAHA Vs. ADDL D J AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 21st October, 1994 has referred the matter to the Division Bench for decision whether the court exercising revisional powers under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the Act), can admit the additional evidence while entertain ing the revision. The reference order reads as under : "the main question involved before this Court is for adjudication is whether the Court sitting in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act can take additional evidence. There are conflicting decisions of this Court on this point. However it is felt that the matter should be decided by a Division Bench of this Court. "

(2.) SECTION 25 of the Act as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh reads as under: "revision of decrees and orders of courts of small causes.- The District Judge, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a court of small causes was according to law, may of his own motion, or on the application of the aggrieved party made within 30 days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. "

(3.) IN Malini Ayyappa Naickar v. Seth Manghraj Udhavidas Firm, AIR 1969 SC 1344, the Supreme Court considered the scope of revisional powers under the Provincial INsolvency Act, 1920, which is identical to Section 25 of the Act and held as under: "quite clearly the legislature did not confer on the High Court. . . . . an appellate power nor did it confer on it a jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence on record. While examining that power the High Court is by and large bound by the findings of fact recorded by the District Court. If the legislature intended to confer power on it to re-examine both questions of law and fact it would have conveyed its intention by appropriate words as has been done under various other statutes. A wrong decision on facts by a competent court is also a decision according to law. For these reasons we cannot accept the contention. . . . that the Act enables it to be de novo examine the finding of fact reached by the District court. "