RAJANI BALA RASTOGI Vs. SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lallan Verma, learned counsel for the respondent. By way of present petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 11.09.2019 passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 1 of 2018 (Smt. Rajani Bala Rastogi Vs. Sanjay Kumar Gupta).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional evidence in Appellate Court which was rejected by the Revisional Court vide order dated 11.09.2019. Apart from many other grounds, he has submitted that this application can only be decided at the time of final hearing of the Revision and not before that by a separate order. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court passed in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. T.N. Sahani and others, (2001) 10 SCC 619 decided on 12.10.2000 and also judgment of this Court passed in the matter of Smt. Sandal (Deceased) and another Vs. Smt. Hamida and others, 2018 (3) ADJ 415 decided on 04.09.2017 and submitted that in the light of provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC as well as judgment given by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan (Supra) and by this Court in the matter of Smt. Sandal (Deceased) (Supra), impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Sri Lallan Verma, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the argument of counsel for the petitioner and submitted that it is not open for the revisionist to file additional evidence at any time. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter Basayya I. Mathad Vs. Rudrayya S. Mathad and others, 2008 (71) ALR 178 decided on 24.01.2008.