The revisional court's powers are limited, and it cannot disturb findings of fact unless they are perverse; additional evidence must be justified and not used to fill gaps.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-This petition questions the judgment and order dated 2.5.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Agra in SCC Revision No. 47 of 2019 decreeing the suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed by Judge Small Causes in SCC Case No. 40 of 2012 dated 1.8.2019, dismissing the suit.

2. The only point urged before the Court is that exercising powers of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, the Court below was not justified in appreciating the additional evidence and decreeing the suit on that basis instead of remanding it to the trial Court for decision afresh.

3. It is argued that powers of Court in revision are not as wide as powers in appeal and hence the judgment and decree passed by the Court sitting in revision deserves to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of a concurrent Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Jain v. Jagdish Chandra Nagpal, in which the Court had further relied upon a Division Bench judgment in the case of Babu Ram v. Additional District Judge, Dehradun and another, 1983 ARC 15. Learned counsel has placed paragraph No. 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment which run as under:

''(12) THE position of law which emerges out from the aforesaid decisions is that since Order XLI, Rule 27, C. P. C. has been expressly excluded from its applicability to the proceedings before the small Cause Courts, the same, neither in its terms nor in principle, can be pressed into service by the Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for taking additional evidence but such a Court certainly possesses power to admit additional evidence in exercise of its inherent powers for doing justice between the parties. That power, however, has to be exercised cautiously only in appropriate cases subject to the limitation that the additional evidence should not be admitted for reappraising the evidence or for setting aside a finding of fact. On the same analogy, evidence alleged to be subsequently discovered by a party should normally be not admitted in revision to demonstrate that the finding given by the trial Court was erroneous. Similarly, additional evidence also cannot be permitted to be brought on record in a revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act to fill in the lacuna.

(13) A perusal of the order, dated 30.8.96, whereby the application of respondent No. 1 for bringing on record some rent receipts was allowed, would indicate that the ground for taking the said additional evidence on record was that the rent receipts could not be filed in the trial Court as they were not traceable at that time and thus according to the contention of the respondent No. 1, the said additional evidence was discovered subsequently on 19.4.96. The revisional Court took the view that it was necessary to bring the said rent receipts on record so that the matter in controversy might be adjudicated finally between the parties. The revisional Court, however, has not recorded any good reasons as to why the admission of the-rent-receipts-at-revisional-stage-was- necessary for deciding the matter finally between the parties. It also failed to note that it was merely an attempt of respondent No. I to fill in the lacuna. It may be stated here that the trial Court had recorded a finding of fact that the respondent No. 1 committed default in payment of rent. This finding of fact could not be set aside on the basis of additional evidence-filed before the revisional Court, in view of the aforesaid case of Division Bench wherein it has been specifically held:

''additional evidence subsequently discovered by a party cannot be admitted in a revision to demonstrate that the finding given by the Judge. Small Causes Court was erroneous.''

(14) IT was not a subsequ