S.K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) The interlocutary orders passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Mathura, in a revision under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are being impugned in the present writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner in this court is a defendant in a suit. That suit was instituted by Shyam Sundar in his capacity as a landlord. The suit was dismissed. He preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Act. In that revision on 27th January, 1987, an application was made for permission to file certain additional evidence. That application was allowed. On payment of Rs. 50 as costs. The Court reserved the right of the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. Thereafter, on an another application dated 27th January, 1987, the landlord Shyam Sundar was permitted to file some documents. The petitioner was given time to file evidence in rebuttal by 25th February, 1987.
(3.) Learned Counsel has urged that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not attracted to proceedings in a revision under Section 25 of the Act. He has relied upon decision of this Court in this case of Babu Ram v. Addl. District Judge, Dehradun, 1982 U.P. RCC 764 : 1983 (1) ARC 15 (DB) . It is true that this Court has taken the view that order XLI Rule 23 of the Code would have no application. However, this Court has also taken the view that Section 151 of the Code confers inherent powers upon the court to accept additional evidence. It cannot be said that the order accepting additional evidence is without jurisdiction. This is not the stage for entering into the propriety of the orders. However, I reserve the right of the petitioner to challenge the legality of the impugned orders if and when a decree is passed against him by the revisional Court and if he is advised to challenge the same in appropriate forum.;