Allahabad High Court
Smt. Gres Hakit vs Dr. Surya Prakash Bhatia on 21 May, 2013
Bench: Krishna Murari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28549 of 2013
Petitioner :- Smt. Gres Hakit
Respondent :- Dr. Surya Prakash Bhatia
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.M.Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Srivastava,Pushkar Srivastava
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent.
This ia a tenant's petition challenging the order dated 06.04.2013 passed by revisional court rejecting his application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for accepting additional evidence.
The facts, in brief, are that landlord-respondent filed a suit before Judge, Small Causes Court for eviction after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. Trial court vide judgment and order dated 11.04.2011 decreed the suit, against which a revision was preferred. During the pendency of the revision proceedings, tenant-petitioner moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for accepting some additional evidence on record. The documents to be taken in additional evidence were Ration-Card, Voter-Card and certain tenders for making deposits. The application was filed on the allegation that Ration-card and voter-card was filed in another case from where it was taken back and was lost. Revisional court vide order impugned in this petition rejected the application on the ground that documents, which are being filed as additional evidence, could very well have been filed before the trial court and it was not the case that the said documents were not in the knowledge nor after exercise of due diligence could be produced before the trial court. Revisional court, however, accepted the tenders for rent deposits. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order in as much as provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC clearly provides that a party shall be entitled to produce additional evidence before the appellate court subject to the condition that the court from whose decree appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been accepted on record; the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him before the trial court; the appellate court requires any document to be produced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
In the case in hand, none of the conditions prescribed by Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for admitting additional evidence are in existence. The documents, which were being filed as additional evidence, were very well within the knowledge of the petitioner, could have been filed before the trial court and having failed to do so, he cannot be permitted to file the same before the revisional court.
In view of above facts and discussions, impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which may require interference by this Court.
The writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 21.5.2013
Dcs
