This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 21-8-1993.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in this writ petition.

3. It appears that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises in dispute of which the respondent is the landlord. The respon dents filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner which was decreed by the trial court on 3-3-1990. The petitioner filed a revision against that judgment. During the course of revision he

sought amendment in the pleading. That application has been rejected by the impugned order, hence, this writ petition.

4. The settled law is that ordinarily no fresh evidence is allowed in appeal or revision. The parties have to rely on the same evidence which they led before the trial court while arguing the appeal or revision. It is only in the exceptional cir cumstances mentioned in Order XLI Rule 27 that fresh evidence is allowed in appeal. It follows as a logical corollary that no amendment to the pleadings should or dinarily be allowed in appeal or revision if it entails leading fresh evidence. It is only if the fresh evidence consequent to such amendment is permissible by Order X