D MOHAPATRA Vs. IXTH ADDL DISTT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for applicant-contesting respondent and also perused the record.

(2.) BY means of this petition the petitioner prays for a writ, order or direc tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5-4-1997 whereby applica tion filed by the contesting respondent under Order XU, Rule 27 CPC was al lowed by the Court below and order dated 31-5-1997 whereby the contesting respon dent No. 2 was permitted to prove the additional evidence.

(3.) 1 have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. It is well-settled law that the revisional Court has got jurisdiction to admit additional evidence in the revision filed under Sec tion 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. A reference to the following decisions of this Court may be made in support of the above proposition:- (1) Vtrendra Singh Kushwaha v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Agra and others, 1996 (28) ALR 185, Babu Ram v. The Additional District Judge, Dehradun, (1993) 1 ARC 15 (DB ). It has also been urged that the revisional Court has got jurisdiction to permit any party filing the additional evidence to lead evidence to prove the documents filed as additional evidence. A reference in this regard may be made to the following case:- (1) Mst. Bal Sundari v. VIIIth Addi tional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1987 (2) ARC 252.