KUSAM LATA Vs. MADAN MOHAN CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment of the learned appellate authority confirming the judgment and order of the learned Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition preferred by the landlord.

(2.) AN application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by the petitioner herein before the appellate authority 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. praying that he may be allowed to prove the original power of attorney as photo copy had already been placed on record before the Rent Controller. The prayer made was that the Rent Controller had dismissed the eviction petition holding that the production of the photo copy of the power of attorney would not constitute proof of authority in the absence of original being produced on record. The appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority alongwith the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to lead additional evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

(3.) ON the dismissal of the application for leading additional evidence, the appellate authority has totally ignored the settled law under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy AIR 1963 SC 1526 has already pronounced on the parameters of exercise of jurisdiction by a Court while dealing with application for permission for leading additional evidence. This judgment has been followed by this court in Badi Ram v. M/S R.S.Company AIR 2002 HP 150. The reasons given by the learned appellate authority in dismissing the application are not in consonance with the law as laid down in the two judgments referred to hereinbefore where the principles have been enumerated exhaustively and in detail. Merely observing that the appellant had deliberately not produced original power of attorney was a sufficient ground to dismiss the application, is not enough.