Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is inter alia challenging the order dated 17.10.2011 whereby the XIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Bareilly in Small Cause Revision No. 7 of 2009 (Surya Prakash v. Smt. Santosh Kumari and another) has rejected the Application dated 17.10.2011 (Paper No. 53-C) whereby and wherein the prayers made by the petitioner before the Revisional Court to either remand the entire matter (the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC) filed by the petitioner (third party applicant) to the lower Court for giving its findings on all the points afresh after taking into consideration the additional evidence admitted on record during the pendency of the revision, after the order of remand dated 20.10.2010.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows;

3. Respondent No. 1 allegedly claiming herself to be the landlady of the shop in dispute instituted a suit for ejectement, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the Respondent No. 2, Jagdish Narain Mehra on 30.4.2003. The said suit was registered as Small Cause Suit No. 29 of 2003 and was also decreed for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits on 26.8.2003 by the Judge Small Cause Court, Bareilly.

4. The petitioner is a third party. After acquiring knowledge of the aforesaid decree filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC on 18.11.2003 (hereinafter referred to as the application) which was registered as Misc. Case No. 57 of 2003. The said application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 was objected by both the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing their objections dated 22.12.2003 and 30.1.2004. In the aforementioned objections it was, inter alia, stated that no such rent agreement as alleged by the petitioner was executed on 7.4.2011 by Mohan Swaroop and that the petitioner in possession of the shop in dispute was a servant of the Respondent No. 2 and therefore he had no independent right to raise objections to the execution of the aforesaid decree for eviction. The aforesaid objections were counter objected by two sets of counter objections by the petitioner. After the exchange of pleadings and affidavit, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bareilly vide its judgment and order dated 28.2.2009 dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 28.2.2009 preferred a Small Cause Revision No. 7 of 2009 and in the aforesaid revision an application dated 7.10.2010 (Paper No. 28-C) was filed by the petitioner purporting to be under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permitting the petitioner to place on record the original Rent Deed dated 7.4.2000 in evidence.

5. The Revisional Court while finally disposing of the said application had admitted in evidence the documents bearing Paper No. 31-C/2 to 31-C/4 and the original Rend Deed dated 7.4.2000 but had remitted to the Trial Court on an issue as to whether the aforesaid document bear the signature of Mohan Swaroop or whether the said document was forged one or whether the said document was ever executed or not and in that connection the trial Court after taking evidence will transmit the evidence to the Revisional Court. On 21.5.2011 (Paper No. 249/C) was filed by the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 57 2003 to lead oral original evidence of the petitioner and that of another witness Chandra Mohan Arora. However, the said application dated 21.5.2011 was rejected by the Court below by order dated 23.5.2011. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 58493 of 2011 which was too dismissed on 14.10.2011. The trial Court finally in compliance of the Revisional Courts order dated 20.10.2010, after collecting evidence in support of the documents specified by the Revisional Court forwarded the said evidence which were recorded by it to the Revisional Court.

6. An application (Paper No. 5