V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition, questioning the validity of order dated 30.07.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Agra, allowing application moved on behalf of landlord for accepting additional evidence.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that before Judge Small Causes Court JSCC suit No. 68 of 1998 was filed for ejectment and arrears of rent. In the said proceedings so undertaken, Judge Small Cause Court on 30.05.2002 passed order, refusing the relief of ejectment of petitioner from disputed shop. Aggrieved against the said order landlord filed JSCC revision No.14 of 2002. On 08.05.2007 an application was moved for bringing on record the documents to determine the date of construction of property. It was mentioned therein that if the documents filed therein are not admitted on record, rights of revisionist would be seriously prejudiced. The said application, which was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the same objection had been filed, and thereafter said application has been allowed on 30.07.2008. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case no reasons have been assigned by the Additional District Judge as to why the application in question was being accepted.
(3.) AFTER the arguments being advanced, impugned order dated 30.07.2008 has been perused. Order in question reflects that application in question had been moved for accepting the documents filed along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., as in the opinion of Revisionist, same would help the court in deciding the matter, and at the time when the matter was decided said documents were not available. Concerned court has proceeded to note down the respective arguments advanced by the parties and thereafter has proceeded to mention that on the basis of case laws produced in Revisional Court, additional evidence can be produced. The judgment which has been produced on behalf of the tenant, same does not give correct proposition of law, as such application 153C was accepted and the list of documents mentioned therein were accepted in evidence. The judgment which has been cited for and which has been relied upon by the concerned court merely gives right to accept the additional evidence on record, but it does not ipso facto mean that once right is there, then revisional court has to accept the additional evidence, and same can be accepted as a matter of course. In the present case concerned court has not given reason as to why said application was being accepted, whereas, as per provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. in case additional evidence was to be accepted on record, then party seeking production of additional evidence was obliged to substantiate that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not after the exercise of due diligence by him at the time when decree appealed against was passed, and the court concerned requires such document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, and whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, court will have to give reasons. In the present case reasons are completely lacking and missing.;