The rejection of an application for additional evidence by a lower court does not warrant interference by the High Court if no jurisdictional error is found.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The writ petition arises out of a SCC suit for arrears of rent and eviction, filed by the respondent, against the petitioner. The suit was initially decreed. However, the consequential revision was allowed and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision.

3. The Small Causes Court, upon remand, again decreed the suit on 03.05.2012. The petitioner preferred a revision, which is pending consideration.

4. On 26.02.2016, the petitioner filed an application for bringing additional evidence on record. A list of 12 documents was appended to this application. Eight of these documents were original tender receipts, the ninth was an electricity bill and 10th document was a receipt for deposit of rent in the Bank Account of the respondent, for the period from 04.07.2007 to 27.10.2007. Documents 11 and 12 are the computerized statement of the Bank Account of the respondent. These two statements are dated 07.02.2011. The 13th and last document is a reply received by the petitioner from the Regional Office of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits in response to her query, under the Right to Information Act.

5. This application was opposed by the respondent primarily on the ground that the documents sought to be brought on record as additional evidence were irrelevant and a mere attempt to delay the disposal of the revision.

6. The revisional Court, vide order dated 08.09.2016, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that all the documents sought to be filed as additional evidence were in the possession of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings before the Judge Small Causes Court. No cogent explanation has been given as to why the same has not been filed before the Trial Court.

7. Before this Court, the primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that document no.13 appended to the application for the additional evidence is crucial. This document shows that the respondent Trust is not registered as a Registered Society.

8. It is submitted that this question goes to the very root of the matter and therefore, the additional evidence should have been taken on record and in failing to-do-so, the revisional Court has committed, jurisdictional error.

9. The respondent claims to be a Trust. In my considered opinion, a Trust does not necessarily have to be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1880. In case, it is so registered it would be a registered society and not a Trust. In my considered opinion, a Trust is governed by the provisions of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863.

10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that the reply received under Right to Information Act is a document which goes to the very root of the matter and was necessarily required to be taken on record, as additional evidence.

11. Besides, even this document is dated 12.02.2012. The SCC Suit was decided, vide order dated 03.05.2012. The petitioner was, therefore, in possession of this document during the pendency of the SCC Suit itself but did not file the same.

12. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the reasoning given in the impugned order, which therefore, suffers from no jurisdictional error warranting interference.

13. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.