( 1 ) HEARD Shri Diwakar Rai sharma learned counsel for the revisionist.

( 2 ) THE order dated 28-1-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6/judge small Causes Court, Muzaffar Nagar, in S. C. C. Suit No. 14 of 2005- Laxmi Chand vs. Mohar Singh, is challenged in this revision.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff/opposite party instituted a S. C. C. Suit for decree of eviction and possession on the ground of default in payment of rent of the disputed shop situated at Ram rahim market, Qasba Thana Bhawan, pargana Thana Bhawan, District Muzaffar nagar. The revisionist is a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 1000/ -. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that no rent has been paid after 1-1-2003. A notice was sent on 2-6-2005 determining the tenancy and demand for arrears of rent and damages was made. The plaintiff contended that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1991, therefore, the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply. Copy of the plaint has been annexed as annexure no. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the Stay Application. The written statement was filed disputing the allegation of the plaint including rate of rent and stating that the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. The plaintiff moved an application on 22-11-2005 seeking permission to admit the replication along with certain documents On account of reason that new facts have been brought by the defendant/revisionist in his written statement and objection were filed to the said application on 27-1 -2006 which is annexed as annexure no. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of stay Application. It was specifically objected that the plaintiff wants to bring new and additional fact and document on record by means of replication, which is not bonafide. In fact the act of the plaintiff was stated to be malafide in the objection of the revisionist. Copy of the replica and list of document said to be brought on record subsequent to filing of the written statement, have been annexed as annexure no. 5 and 6 to the affidavit filed in support of the Stay application. The Judge Small causes Court has allowed the said application and rejected the objection of the revisionist and has taken the replica and the documents on record, which are challenged in the instant revision.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the revisionist has laid emphasis on the provision of Order 8 Rule 9 c. P. C which provides subsequent pleading. Rule 9 Order 8 is quoted below: 9. Subsequent pleadings.- No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter- claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.)Order 7 Rule 14 C. P. C. is also quoted below: 14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-

(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. 2. Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, where possible, state in whose possession or power it is. 3. A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall, not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 4. Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the revisionist submits th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document