SATYA NARAYAN Vs. SMT. MOHINI DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prevesh Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant-tenant/petitioner and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/landlord.

(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 28.11.2017 in U.P.U.B. Appeal No.4/2015 (Satya Narayan Vs. Smt. Mohani and others), passed by the Court of Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Court No.1, Hathras, whereby the application of the defendant-appellant/petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking additional evidence, was rejected.

(3.) The sole ground argued by learned counsel for the petitioner to attack the impugned order is that due to mistake of the counsel, copy of an order dated 24.5.1996 and a copy of written statement of case No.18/1987 could not be filed before the trial court and as such these additional evidences filed as per list 11-C were liable to be admitted in evidence but the application 11-C has been illegally rejected by the impugned order dated 28.11.2017.