Devraj Manocha vs Manoj Kumar Gupta

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J—This is a tenant''s writ petition, being aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court dated 4.3.2015 (revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act), by which the application of the petitioner/defendant for placing additional evidence in the revision proceedings have been rejected. The reason assigned by the Revisional Court are that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in a revision as these provisions are apparently only applicable in an appeal. Moreover, it has not been stated by the revisionist as to what is the relevance of the documents, he wants to place in evidence.

As far as the power under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure which are on a bare reading the powers of the Appellate Court to adduce additional evidence. But it has been held by the Hon''ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Babu Ram v. Additional District Judge, Dehradun, that though strictly speaking these powers are not applicable to a Revisional Court yet it does not debar the Revisional Court to allow taking of additional evidence because it has inherent power to do so and, therefore, the power under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be used, but it will depend upon a case to case. That being the position of law, the finding of the Revisional Court that it does not have any power to take additional evidence appears to be in, correct. What, however, has to be seen in the matter is as to the nature of the evidence, being adduced.

The landlord had filed a suit for permanent injunction being Original Suit No. 480 of 2003, in which he has clearly stated that defendant/present petitioner is under his tenancy. The defence was that he is not the tenant and in fact the present petitioner/defendant disputed the title of the landlord. This suit was subsequently withdrawn on 21.11.2013 i.e., after the SCC Suit No. 39 of 2006 was decreed in favour of the landlord/respondent vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.2013. Certain documents filed in the above suit (SCC Suit No. 39 of 2006) were sought to be placed now in the revisional proceedings by the defendants, which has been denied.

The reasoning adopted by the Revisional Court cannot be faulted, inasmuch as, the defence of the present petitioner/tenant remains the same in the present proceedings as it was in the proceedings before the civil suit. The plea for taking additional evidence before the Revisional Court after almost one year since the withdrawal of the original suit appears only to dilate the proceedings in revision, which has been rightly rejected by the Revisional Court.

This Court is of the opinion that even though no interference is presently being made, the Sessions Court if at any later stage, comes to the conclusion that the said evidence is vital for the defence of the defendant, it can allow the same to be recorded, but the writ petition is presently dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.