Allahabad High Court
Husain Uddin Alias Munney Bhai vs Xiith Addl. District Judge, Agra And ... on 8 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)AWC818
JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.12.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the additional evidence submitted by respondent No. 2 has been admitted in revision.
2. The facts, in brief, are that plaintiff-respondent No. 2 is a registered Society and runs an educational Institution known as K. G. Inter College. The disputed portion of the property was let out by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 filed Suit No. 1163 of 1977 in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Agra against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages. In the plaint it was alleged that one Kedar Nath Bansal was tenant of the disputed premises. He. without the consent of the plaintiff. Inducted the petitioner as sub-tenant. It was further alleged that the plaintiff, after obtaining permission under Section 3 of U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 against said Kedar Nath Bansal, filed Suit No. 1055 of 1968 against him and the petitioner.
3. Kedar Nath Bansal did not put in appearance in the case and did not contest the suit. The suit was dismissed by the Judge Small Causes Court holding that Kishan Chand. who claims to be the Secretary of the plaintiff, was not proved to be so and, accordingly, the suit filed by him was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. Respondent No. 2 filed Revision against this order before the District Judge, Agra. under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
4. Respondent No. 2. during the pendency of the revision, filed two applications 14C and 22C seeking permission to file certain papers as additional evidence. It was stated that Kishan Chand is the Secretary of the Society and a resolution dated 14.6.1976 was passed by the Committee of Management in favour of Secretary to file the suit. The Register, which noted the resolution, was filed in Suit No. 437 of 1983. Nawab Shah Education Society v. Sita Ram. The suit was decreed by Additional Munslf. Agra and against that decision Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1986 was preferred by Slta Ram. The original register filed In the said suit was kept in the record room of civil court. Agra and could not be traced out during the hearing of Original Suit No. 1163 of 1977. The register could not be produced when the trial court decided the suit. The original register filed in Suit No. 437 of 1983 was recently traced out in the record room and received back by respondent No. 2 on 5.3.1998. It was prayed that the register be taken on record. Another application 22C was filed to take on record the certified copy of the application for the return of the document. The petitioner submitted an objection to these applications. Respondent No. 1. after taking into consideration all the aspects, allowed the application to admit the document as additional evidence in the revision. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar submitted that the Court had no Jurisdiction to admit the additional evidence in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to fill up the lacuna in the case.
As noted above, the trial court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that the Secretary, who had filed the suit, was duly authorised to file the suit on behalf of the society. The Register, which contained the resolution, was not available when the suit was decided.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in Babu Ram v. Additional District Judge, Dehradun and another, 1983 (1) ARC 15. has held that Order XL1, Rule 27 cannot be pressed into service for admitting additional evidence in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act but the Court exercising the jurisdiction under Section 151. C.P.C. can admit documents in revision under Section 151. C.P.C. This provision preserves inherent power of the Court for doing justice according to law. It was observed that Court is constituted for the purpose of doing justice, according to law and must, therefore, be deemed to possess as a necessary corollary, and has Inherent in its very constitution, all such powers as may be necessary to do the right and undo the wrong in the course of the administration of justice.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of Kailash Chand Jain v. Jagdish Chandra Nagpal and another, 1997 (2) ARC 540, wherein it has been held that the Court exercising the power under Section 25 cannot permit a party to lead evidence to fill up lacuna. Similar view was expressed in Shyam Sunder Sharma v. District Judge, Mathura and others. 1997 (1) ARC 14, The question is whether on the facts of a particular case, it is necessary to admit a particular document in the interest of justice, has to be examined keeping in view various aspects. If the Court finds thai there was no negligence on the part of the applicant submitting the additional evidence in revision and such document is necessary for consideration of case in the interest of justice, the Court is not precluded from admitting such document. From the facts indicated above, it was clear that the suit was dismissed on the ground that the Secretary failed to establish that he was duly authorised to file the suit. It was asserted by him that the register, which contained the resolution, was misplaced from the record room of the Court itself and when it was traced, it was filed. I do not find any illegality committed by the Court below in admitting the document as additional evidence.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.