Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) -
(2.) IN the small town of Bulandshahr there is a lawyer and a trader, a partner in the firm known as Messers Anupama. The petitioner is a lawyer ; the respondent is a trader. Over the years between them they had a relationship of a customer and a shop keeper. The petitioner often purchased cloth from the respondent, some times on cash and at times on credit and on occasions took merchandise on approval pending purchase. At one stage there was a misunderstanding between them on the running account. The misunderstanding was on the balance which was to be cleared on the merchandise purchased. The two could not resolve the issue between them and this occasioned Suit No. 263 of 1985 : Messrs Anupama v. Atma Ram Sharma before the First Munsif, Bulandshahr. The respondent shopkeeper sought a money decree and on contest received it. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bulandshahr. It is an interlocutory order passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahr which occasions the filing of this writ petition. This is an order of the District Judge dated 2-4-1987 in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1986 : Atma Ram Sharma v. Messrs Anupama. During the pendency of the appeal, the shopkeeper filed certain additional evidence, the permission for which was granted. This aggrieves the petitioner and has given an occasion to this petition. He desires that the additional evidence must not see the bar of the Court. The matter has been vehemently contested at the Bar here. Apparently, the petitioner as a lawyer feels that he knows the law. Likewise the shopkeeper his accounts.
(3.) THE strenuous and vehement arguments on behalf of the petitioner have been developed and on what the law is and at the outset certain cases were cited at the Bar. THE case cited at the bar are : AIR 1965 Alld. 189, 1983 ALJ 400, AIR 1957 SC 912, AIR 1976 SC 1054 and AIR 1957 Cal. 59. If facts had not been in issue then the law is clear but the most unfortunate part of the present petition is that the facts have not been set on the record fairly and the most important aspect was kept away from the Court and this is no other aspect than the trial court judgment. The petition was earlier presented by another counsel. Counsel appearing for the petitioner now desires this to be set on record ; accordingly this is being done. But counsel simultaneously contends that the trial court judgment is not relevant. When additional evidence is being presented before the appellate court and is being made an issue in the writ petition the first relevant record is the judgment of the trial court. Keeping it away from the record of the writ petition constitutes material suppression of facts.;