GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. - (1.) EVICTION Suit No. 48 of 1990 filed by opposite party against petitioner was dismissed on 30.5.1994. holding that there was no relationship of landlord and a tenant between the parties.
(2.) OPPOSITE party, thereafter, preferred Eviction Appeal No. 17 of 1994. which is pending. In the appeal, on 19.8.1994 a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for admitting certain documents mentioned therein in additional evidence, which has been allowed by impugned order dated 31.7.1998. Petitioner has challenged the said order in the present Revision application. While considering the said petition. Court of appeal below observed that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was most vital and significant issue. Opposite party produced certain documents of correspondences between the parties, relating to allotment of Companys quarters, including the suit premises to TISCO Maz -door Union. According to opposite party, those letters could not be traced out at the relevant times, therefore, were not filed in the suit.
(3.) PETITIONER challenged those documents as forged and fabricated and called it just an effort on the part of opposite party to fill up the lacuna in its evidence. At the relevant stage, trial Court was never informed by opposite party that those documents were misplaced.;