JUDGMENT : - R.H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for applicant-contesting respondent and also perused the record. 2. BY means of this petition the petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5-4-1997 whereby application filed by the contesting respondent under Order XU, Rule 27 CPC was al lowed by the Court below and order dated 31-5-1997 whereby the contesting respondent No. 2 was permitted to prove the additional evidence. It appears that Respondent No. 2 filed a suit for ejectment and -recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that the building in question was a new construction and that tenancy of the defendant-petitioner was terminated. The suit was contested by the petitioner, denying the claim of the plaintiff- respondent. The par ties produced evidence in support of their cases. The trial Court after perusing the evidence on record dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 8-3-1995. Ag grieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, respondent No. 2 filed a revision before the Court below. During pendency of the revision Respondent No. 2 filed an application for admission of additional evidence. The said application was allowed by the Court below. There after another application was filed by respondent No. 2 for permitting her to lead evidence to prove the documents which were filed by her earlier. The said application was also allowed. The present writ petition, as stated above, has been filed challenging the validity of these orders. 3. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction in permitting respondent No. 2 to file additional evidence. According to him, no case for admission of additional evidence was at all made out, therefore, application should have been rejected. It was urged that in any view of the matter the Court below should not have permitted the respondent No. 2 to lead evidence to prove the documents filed by her. LEARNED Counsel for the con testing respondent on the other hand submitted that the Court below was within its jurisdiction in permitting the additional evidence to be filed and proved as it was necessary for doing justice between the parties. It was urged that the Court below did not commit any error of law and jurisdiction in allowing the applications filed by contesting respondent. 4. It was urged that the Court below did not commit any error of law and jurisdiction in allowing the applications filed by contesting respondent. 4. I HAVE considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. It is well-settled law that the revisional Court has got jurisdiction to admit additional evidence in the revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. A reference to the following decisions of this Court may be made in support of the above proposition:- (1) Vtrendra Singh Kushwaha v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Agra and others, 1996 (28) ALR 185, Babu Ram v. The Additional District Judge, Dehradun, (1993) 1 ARC 15 (DB). It has also been urged that the revisional Court has got jurisdiction to permit any party filing the additional evidence to lead evidence to prove the documents filed as additional evidence. A reference in this regard may be made to the following case:- (1) Mst. Bal Sundari v. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1987 (2) ARC 252. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be said that the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the con testing respondent to file additional evidence and to permit her to prove the documents filed as additional evidence. 5. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Court below has. no jurisdiction to place reliance upon additional evidence for the purpose of reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court. In substance the submission is that the revisional Court has got no jurisdiction to rely upon the additional evidence, to reverse the findings of trial Court and to record its own finding on the questions of fact contrary to the findings recorded by trial Court. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner may be right in his submissions. However, the said point may be raised before the revisional Court when the case is heard and decided finally. 6. SUBJECT to what has been stated above, I do not find any force in the petition which is dismissed with costs. The parties are directed to appear before the revisional Court on 16-2-1999. Petition dismissed.