R.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the IIIrd Addl. District Judge rejecting an application moved by the petitioner for summoning Swaraj Kumari and Sunil Kumar in Court for oral evidence and for cross-examining them.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order passed in the appeal which is still pending before the IIIrd Addl. District Judge. The learned Addl. District Judge rightly held that Swaraj Kumari and Sunil Kumar did not file affidavits before the Prescribed Authority and hence they cannot be summoned to give oral evidence at the stage of the appeal. Oral evidence is not contemplated under provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The cases under this Act are decided on the basis of affidavits received. Though the power has been given to the authorities to summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him on oath but the legislative intent was that the cases should be decided only on the basis of the affidavit filed. Hence, it is clear that what was intended was that the evidence shall be received on affidavits. In the case of Smt. Gulaicha Devi v. Prescribed Authority and others, reported in 1988 ALR 840 : 1989(1) ARC 407, it was held that giving oral evidence and cross-examining of the dependent was not contemplated and the cases should be decided only on the basis of the evidence received on affidavits. In Radha Kishan v. IVth Addl. District Judge and others, reported in 1985(1) ARC 427, it was held that evidence on affidavit is permissible under Section 34(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the primary objective of expeditious disposal may be hampered if parties are permitted to lead oral evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that Section 34(1)(a) of the Act provides for summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath. However, Section 34 of the Act only empowers the Court with the same powers as are vested in the Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. Since as observed above, the legislative intent is only to receive evidence in the shape of affidavits so that the speedy disposal of the case may not hampered, I am of the view that in case the person sought to be examined at the appellate stage was not the person whose affidavit was filed before the Prescribed Authority, it is all the more not a case for allowing such person to be summoned for oral evidence at the appellate stage. The appellate Court is competent to allow evidence to be led in respect of subsequent events. However, in the present case, it cannot be said that there were any subsequent events so as to permit the two persons to be examined at appellate stage for oral evidence.
(3.) HENCE , in the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the IIIrd Addl. District Judge rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for production of oral evidence in the case at the appellate stage.;