- (1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of Order No.19 dated 21st March, 2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division, Ranaghat, Nadia) in Title Appeal No.31 of 2007 thereby rejecting defendant's application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) In the revisional application the defendant/appellant/petitioner agitates that the plaintiff-opposite party as landlord filed a suit being Title Suit No.115 of 1996 against the defendant petitioner for his eviction and also for mesne profit. After a contested hearing the suit was decreed and the defendant was given 2 months' time from the date of judgment to vacate the suit room and to deliver its possession in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant/petitioner, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in suit preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.31 of 2007.
(3.) The defendant petitioner filed an application in the learned Court of appeal below under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said application the defendant has stated that by filing written statement he categorically stated that he was tenant under the plaintiff Ajit Kumar Saha and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff/ respondent and the defendant/appellant. The defendant/appellant also mentioned in his written statement that there was an agreement between the defendant and Ajit Kumar Saha. It was further stated in the written statement that tenancy was created on 4th day of Shravan and month of tenancy was from 4th of Bengali month up to 3rd of following month. The defendant/appellant in the written statement also mentioned that Ajit Kumar Saha, his landlord accepted Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) only from the defendant as advance assuring to construct a new room where the defendant was to stay and there was a writing to that effect. In the application under Order 41 Rule 27 it has been stated by the defendant that the said two documents that is, the written agreement and the written proof of acceptance of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) only as aforesaid by the landlord, could not be found out during the trial in spite of best endeavour and, accordingly, the defendant could not file the same during trial. It is his case that at the appellate stage the defendant has been able to trace out those two documents and should be marked as Exhibit and should be considered by the learned Appeal Court below for adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. The contention of the defendant in the said application under Order 41 Rule 27 was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a written objection wherein it has been stated by the plaintiff that prayer was made for admission of additional evidence with an ulterior motive and in order to harass the plaintiff/ respondent.;