Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2572 (ALL)

Bharat Bhushan v. Rajendra Kumar

2017-11-07

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2017
JUDGMENT : V.K. Birla, J. 1. Heard Sri K.K. Marti, learned Counsel alongwith Sri-Dilip Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.8.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Meerut in SCC Revision No. 4 of 2016 whereby the application of the revisionists (petitioners herein) in revision for accepting the additional evidence has been rejected on the ground that additional evidence cannot be accepted as the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. is not applicable in revision and is applicable in appeal only. Apart from that, it has further been held that the documents that are being placed before the Revisional Court in additional evidence were in full knowledge of the revisionists and therefore, even as per provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C., the same cannot be accepted as additional evidence at this stage and no satisfactory reason has been given for not filing the same before the Trial Court. The relevant facts of the case are that a SCC Suit No. 31 of 2005 (Rajendra Kumar v. Bharat Bhushan, Ratan Singh, Babu Lal, Jagdish Prasad) was allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.1.2016. In the shape of additional evidence, the revisionists (petitioners herein) sought to place before the proceedings of PA Case No. 33 of 2010 (Rajendra Kumar v. Bharat Bhushan and Ratan Singh). 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court the rulings that were relied on by the petitioners before the Court below. 3. I have perused the record as well as the rulings placed before this Court and I find that in these rulings the issue as to whether the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. are applicable in the revisional proceedings in revision filed under section 25 of P.S.C.C. Act, 1887 was not in question and therefore, the same have rightly been distinguished by the Trial Court. Broadly speaking the additional evidence is not permissible in such revisional proceedings filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 and therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court and therefore, the additional evidence could not have been accepted. Broadly speaking the additional evidence is not permissible in such revisional proceedings filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 and therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court and therefore, the additional evidence could not have been accepted. Apart from that, the documents that is being sought to be placed in the additional evidence is of the year 2010, which, as rightly observed by the Trial Court, was in full knowledge of the petitioners when they were contesting the SCC Suit No. 31 of 2005, which was decided on 23.1.2016. No specific reason has been assigned why that was not placed before the Trial Court. The only explanation submitted is that since the PA case was filed against the petitioners after five years of the present case in the year 2010 and no legal advice was given to them to place the same before the Trial Court, the same could not have been filed and as such, they are not at fault. 4. In such view of the matter, it is not in dispute that the documents that were sought to be placed, were, as rightly held by the Trial Court, in the full knowledge of the petitioners during the pendency of the suit pending before the Trial Court and for a longs period of six years, the same were not produced before the Trial Court. 5. In such view of the matter, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned herein. Present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.