Tirlok Chand vs Kamal Kant

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This revision petition is against the order of the Appellate Authority, Sirsa, dated 20 12-1991 whereby the application filed by the respondent (appellant before the appellate Authority) seeking permission to adduce additional evidence was allowed.

The respondent filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC seeking permission to produce in evidence a certified copy of the site plan alongwith copy of the decree sheet dated December 8, 1987 passed in Civil Suit No. 1253 of 1987. As per averment made in the application, it was stated that the certified copy was not available earlier and more so the production of these documents was essential for the just decision of this case.

This application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that these documents were well within the knowledge of the respondent. Additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in the case nor the production of these documents is necessary for the pronouncement of the judgment. The appellate Authority, however, found no merit in any of the objections raised by the petitioner and consequently allowed the respondent to adduce additional evidence as sought subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as costs.

The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lower appellate Authority erred in law in holding that the production of these documents is essential for the just decision of this case. Secondly, such permission, if at all, could be granted after evaluating evidence on record i.e. to say, the appellate Authority in the first instance ought to have heard the parties on merits and it is only thereafter that the application for production of additional evidence ought to have been considered. I find no merit in any of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The documents now sought to be placed on record were, in fact, essential in view of the specific observations of the Rent Controller, ''that there is dispute regarding ownership of the premises in dispute, the applicant should have placed certified copies of the judgment as well as the decree dated 8-12-1987 or record. In the absence of this, it cannot be persued that the shop in question had fallen to the share of the applicant...... " Thus, the very locus standi of the petitioner had been doubted while deciding the rent application and this way the production of such a document can be rightly termed as essential for a just decision of the matter in dispute. As regards the objection that the application for additional evidence ought to have been considered only after the appeal had been heard on merits, is, in fact, frivulous Such a course, if adopted, would unnecessarily delay the final disposal of the appeal.

The appellate Authority u/s 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, has power to hold such further enquiry as it think fit either personally or through the agency of the Rent Controller. This way the power exercised by the appellate Authority cannot be termed as illegal or without jurisdiction. I find no merit in this revision petition and accordingly dismiss the same. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 17-8-1992.