SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant/revisionist and Sri Anil Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.
(2.) Undisputedly, the respondent-plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the disputed property of which the petitioner-defendant was the tenant. Her tenancy was terminated by a legal notice due to default in payment of rent. SCC Suit No. 40 of 2004 (Guru Narain Khatri High School Society v. Smt. Uma Devi) was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction of the petitioner-defendant/revisionist/tenant and for recovery of arrears of rent. The said case was decreed by judgment and decree dated 29.4.2014, passed by the 2nd Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar.
(3.) Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner/defendant/tenant filed SCC Revision No. 70 of 2014. In the said revision arguments were concluded by the parties and even written arguments were submitted. The judgment was reserved by the revisional court but due to transfer of the Prescribed Authority, the judgment could not be pronounced. Consequently, the revision was being heard again. Now at this stage on 18.2.2017, the petitioner-defendant/revisionist/tenant filed an application for taking on record certain papers relating to O.S. No. 99 of 2002. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.4.2017, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 42, Kanpur Nagar.;