Ram Lal vs Gurbachan Singh

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—The respondent is absent despite service. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the revision ex-parte.

The respondent''s application for ejectment of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court on merits after recording a finding that the respondent was neither proved to be the owner not landlord of the premises and the petitioner was not proved to be the tenant.

Before the Rent Controller, the rent cote dated 14-4-1957 was relied upon by the respondent The genuineness of this rent note was disputed by the petitioner and in order to show that signatures thereon were of the petitioner the respondent had summoned the record from the Municipal Committee containing the signatures of the petitioner while submitting documents for reconstruction of the house in dispute. The Rent Controller found that these that these signatures did not tally with the Signatures on the rent note.

Feeling dissatisfied the respondent came up in appeal before the appellate authority. In appeal an application under Order 41, Rule 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed for permission to lead additional evidence for producing document expert for comparison of the signatures of the petitioner on certain court proceedings with the signatures on the disputed tent note. The appellate authority merely considered the application without considering the merits of appeal and allowed the additional evidence to be led and that is why the alleged tenant has come up in revision before this court.

If the appellate authority had considered the enter case, i.e. appeal as well as the application for additional evidence and had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to grant permission to lead evidence, the order could be justified. The earliest decision on this matter is Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh 1951 S.C.193, wherein it was held that the entire matter had to be considered before granting permission to lead additional evidence. This not having been done the order cannot be sustained

Accordingly, the revision is allowed The order of the appellate Court dated 15-2- 1989 is set aside and the matter is remitted to that Court to take up the appeal and the application together and decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law keeping in view the dictum of Arjan Singh''s case (supra).