Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, who has appeared on behalf of plaintiff-respondent and has made a statement before the court that he does not intend to file any counter affidavit and the matter be decided finally.
(2.) The petitioner, aggrieved by an order dated 24.8.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bareilly, in SCC Revision No. 39 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected, has approached this Court assailing its validity. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence, which was sought to be adduced, in the revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was also sought to be brought on record before the trial court. However, the trial court by order dated 5.7.2004, rejected the said application and revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order, being Civil Revision No. 35 of 2004 was dismissed by order dated 30.7.2004. It is the same evidence, which the petitioner wanted to bring on record before the revisional court with a specific plea that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in that regard. The revisional court by impugned order refused to allow the application for additional evidence, on the sole ground that the trial court by order dated 5.7.20004 had refused to admit such evidence on record and the revision preferred against the same, has been dismissed by the revisional court and the aforesaid orders have attained finality.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, one of the grounds on which additional evidence can be permitted to be adduced is that the court from whose decree the appeal has been preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted. It is urged that the application has been rejected by the revisional court on the sole ground that similar applications moved before the trial court were rejected and the orders passed by the trial court were affirmed in revision. Thus, the application has not been rejected on merits, but only on the ground of its non-maintainability. It is, thus, urged that the revisional court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.;