Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, along with Sri M.L. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.8.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar on the application no. 65(ga) filed in Rent Appeal No. 107 of 2011 (Bhola Singh and Another v. Neetu Singh and Others) by which application no. 65(ga) has been rejected.
(3.) Through application no. 65(ga), the petitioners have prayed before the court for accepting the additional evidence. The aforesaid application was filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Learned appellate court, taking note of the various pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court regarding acceptability of the additional evidence at the appellate stage, held that none of the ingredients as contained under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC are satisfied and further, the evidence cannot be accepted without there being any pleadings. It has also been observed that the petitioners have throughout been negligent and not careful in filing the written statement before the learned prescribed authority.;