The revisional court under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act has the inherent power to admit additional evidence, but such power should be exercised cautiously only in appropriate cases and subject to the limitation that the additional evidence should not be admitted for reappraising the evidence or for setting aside a finding of fact.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 10. 12. 96 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)and the order dated 30. 8. 96 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 in revision filed by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act.

( 2 ) THE facts may be stated in a narrow compass. The petitioner filed suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the respondent No. 1 on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondent No. 1 denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further alleged that there were no arrears of rent as the same were paid to the house owner smt. Kripa Devi and after her the rent was realized by her sons and daughters. The trial court, however, repelled the defence and decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said decree, respondent No. 1 filed revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. During the pendency of revision, an application for bringing on record some rent receipts as additional evidence was moved on behalf of respondent No. 1. By the order, dated 30. 8. 96, the said application was allowed and thereafter by the impugned order, dated 10. 12. 96, the revisional court has set aside the trial courts decree and has remanded the suit back to the trial court for a fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the respondent No. 1 to prove the rent receipts filed before the revisional court.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Babu Ram v. Additional District Judge. Dehradun and another, 1983 ARC 15. argued that the revisional court committed a gross error of law in admitting additional evidence for setting aside a finding of fact which was not within its Jurisdiction. He further contended that the alleged rent receipts were neither a subsequent nor a new fact which could be brought on record of revisional court.

( 4 ) IN the aforesaid Division Bench decision, it was held that Order XLI, Rule 27 cannot be pressed into service for admitting additional evidence In revision under Section 25 of the provisions of Small Cause Courts Act. However, it was further held that.

"there is no prohibition in either the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act or the Code of Civil Procedure expressly or implledly providing for the bar of admitting additional evidence. . . . . But, the fact that Order XLI, rule 27 has been excluded does not lead to the conclusion that the Court cannot in exercise of its inherent power admit additional evidence when the ends of justice requires the same to be done. . . . . There is no doubt that the Court of Small Causes can in exercise of its Inherent power admit additional evidence. "

In Paragraph 13, the Court further observed :"a revision under Section 25 can be entertained on a question of taw. The Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact. Under Section 25, therefore, the Court cannot admit additional evidence for reappraising the evidence or for setting aside a finding of fact. It is incorrect to suggest that considerations which prevail in regard to the reception of additional evidence in a first appeal should apply or should prevail in regard to its reception in a revision. In a revision, the Court is required to examine whether the impugned judgment is in conformity with law. The findings of fact recorded by the Judge. Small Causes are finally binding on the revisional court. Additional evidence subsequently discovered by a party cannot be admitted in a revision to demonstrate that the finding given by the Judge Small Causes was erroneous. Similarly, with the aid of expression "substantial cause" used in Order XLI, Rule 27, no evidence can be filed in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to fill in the lacuna. "

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 defended the Order of the revisional court dated 30.