SANGEETA CHANDRA,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by Judge Small Causes Court in S.C.C. Suit No. 206 of 2012 and for quashing of the order dated 13.02.2018 passed by District Judge Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Revision No. 23 of 2018.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for taking on record additional evidence/documentary evidence with regard to filing of deposit of rent before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 527/70/2011. The S.C.C. Suit filed for arrears of rent and for eviction of landlord can be allowed only if it is established by the landlord that the tenant has been in arrears of rent. Therefore, the documentary evidence proposed to be filed before the learned trial court regarding rent receipts of deposit of rent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar was necessary. The learned trial court rejected the application on the ground that the application for taking on record additional evidence had been filed merely to prolong the pending proceedings. The tenant had been given sufficient time to adduce evidence and now at the last stage, when the arguments were being heard, such an application for taking on record additional evidence cannot be allowed.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court dated 14.02.2017, the petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 23 of 2018. Learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar while rejecting the revision has observed that Rule 2, Order XIII has been omitted by way of amendment. In the Civil Procedure Code there is no other provision except for Section 151 wherein such application could have been considered or allowed. He has also observed that the suit is pending for the last six years and it was fixed for arguments when the defendant moved application No. 77C for filing documentary evidence, which was also allowed on 09.09.2015. The defendant thereafter moved an amendment application dated 17.10.2015, which was rejected on merits on 28.05.2016. Another application for taking on record the additional evidence has been moved only on 28.03.2017, which was rejected against which a revision was filed. The revision was also allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- with the consent of the parties. Despite the said application for taking on record the additional evidence being filed earlier, no other evidence was filed, and later on the application No. 134-C was moved, which has been rejected by the learned trial court by its order dated 14.04.2017. The revisional court find no infirmity factual or legal in the order passed by the trial court to show interference in revision.;