Markandey Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 1.2.1994, Annexure -5 to the writ petition by which the amendment application of the petitioner has been refused by the Revisional Court. I have heard Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant of the premises in dispute and respondent No. 2 is the land lady thereof. The respondent No. 2 filed a suit for eviction being S.C.C. Case No. 96 of 1986 against the petitioner for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. By judgment dated 20.7.1992 this suit was decreed, a true copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed a revision against this judgment being S.C.C. Revision No. 26 of 1992. Satya Prakash v. Smt. Shanti Devi which is pending before the Ist Additional District Judge, Aligarh. During the pendency of this revision the petitioner filed an amendment application, true copy of which is Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. The respondents filed an objection to the amendment application vide Annexure 4 to the writ petition. By the order dated 1.2.1994 the amendment application was rejected. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed before this Court. It is settled law that ordinarily fresh evidence is not to be allowed in appeal or revision, and it is only in the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. that fresh evidence is allowed in appeal or revision. The logical consequence of this principle is that ordinarily no amendment should be allowed in appeal or revision unless the amendment either raises a purely legal question, or a question of fact which would be covered by Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. otherwise, the result of allowing amendment will be that at the appellate stage examination, cross -examination etc. would have to be done. Such a situation is not ordinarily contemplated by the law. In the present case the amendment application, true copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition, raises mixed questions of law and fact. The petitioner had already claimed benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in para 12 of the written statement, and the amendment application is filed in support of that plea. Section 20(4) of the Act states that if a suit for eviction is on the ground mentioned in Section 20(2)(a), then if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays to the landlord or deposits in court the entire amount of rent and damages together with interest at 9% with landlord's costs after taking any amount deposited under Section 30 into consideration then the Court may dismiss the suit. In the present case since the tenant had already taken the plea of Section 20(4) in my opinion the legal part of the amendment application should have been allowed because it is only to elaborate what has already been taken in the initial pleading. So far as the factual part of the amendment is concerned, the court below should have seen whether it is covered by Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. but it appears that this has not been done. In the circumstances, I set aside the impugned order dated 1.2.1994 and direct the court below to dispose of the amendment application afresh after hearing the parties concerned in the light of the observations made above. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.;