1. Heard.

2. This civil revision is directed against the judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No.2B/08. The judgment was delivered on 17.9.2009. The petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.3B/2007 for recovery of Rs.11,600/-. The said civil suit was rejected by the trial Court. The appellate Court in para 10 of the judgment framed two issues :-

i) Whether the application filed under Order 41 rule 27 CPC is acceptable ?

ii) Whether the judgment and decree is perverse and liable to be interferred with ?

3. Shri R.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erred in rejecting the said application preferred under Order 41 rule 27 CPC. He submits that if said application is allowed, the documents/evidence filed with the said document will clearly substantiate the case of the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

5. The pivotal question is whether the Court below has erred in rejecting the application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC ? The said application dated 14.9.2009 shows that the petitioner intended to bring the evidence of certain more witnesses on record. These are Ku.Asha, Smt. Munnidev