IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 601 of 2003 (M/S) Shri Bhagat Singh S/o Shri Kundan Singh R/o 694 Dakra Bazar Dehradun. ………Petitioner Versus Additional District Judge & 8 others. ….Respondents. Shri Gopal Narain, Advocate present for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Vashistha, Advocate present for respondents No. 2 to 9. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner (tenant) has challenged order dated 04.07.2003, passed by respondent No. 1 in S.C.C. revision No. 18 of 2001, Bhagat Singh Vs. Madhusudan and another, whereby the revisional court (Additional District Judge/VI Fast Track Court, Dehradun), rejected the application 17C, moved by the revisionist (tenant), before said court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents (landlord) filed S.C.C. suit No. 32 of 1993, before the Judge, Small Cause Court/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Div., 2 Dehradun, for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant/present petitioner (tenant). The trial court after hearing the parties, decreed the suit, vide its judgment and decree dated 04.04.2001. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, passed by IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Judge, Small Cause Court, Dehradun, the tenant (present petitioner), filed S.C.C. revision No. 18 of 2001, before the revisional court. During the pendency of the revision, he moved an application 17-C, seeking permission to file copy of reply dated 10.07.1993, to the notice issued by the landlord to him, before institution of the suit. Said application was rejected by the revisional court. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the cases of Gayatri Devi and others Vs. Additional District Judge, Allahabad Rent Cases 1992 (1) Pg. 148, and Husain Uddin Vs. 12th Additional District Judge Allahabad Rent Cases 1999 (1), Pg. 424, and argued that it is within the powers of the revisional court to accept the document, filed at the stage of revision. 5. I have gone through said case laws, and also facts of the present case. Rule 27 of Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides 3 the circumstances in which the additional evidence can be entertained by the appellate courts. In the case of decree, passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, no appeal is maintainable and that is how the revision appears to have been filed under Section 25 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Even if we take the analogy of the principles contained in Rule 27 of Rule 41 of the Code, there is no absolute right to the party to file additional evidence at the appellate or the revisional stage. Additional evidence is entertained at the appellate stage only when either:- 1) the Court whose decree is challenged, has refused to admit the evidence, which ought to have been admitted, or 2) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, shows that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, evidence could not be filed, or 3) the appellate court requires any document to enable it to pronounce the judgment. Neither of the three conditions is fulfilled in the present case. The reply of the notice issued by the landlord to the tenant was given by him prior to the filing of the suit and he could have duly conveniently filed copy of said reply before the trial court, which remained pending since 1993 to 2001. The explanation given for not filing the document of which he was in 4 possession, is not satisfactory as observed by the revisional court. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, passed by the revisional court, this Court does not find any error of law, committed by the revisional court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the revision be decided by the revisional court, as expeditiously as possible. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:17.09.2009 Sweta