RAMDULARE Vs. MOTICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 5-3-98 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.49-A/95 dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment & decree dated 18-7-95 passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.73-A/92, whereby learned 4th Civil Judge Class-I has dismissed the suit for recovery of rent and permanent injunction to the effect that the tenant shall be directed to pay the part of rent to the plaintiffs and not to pay to defendant No.1.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits as also on the application for admitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `the Code'), perused the impugned judgment & decree and record of the Courts below.

(3.) Following substantial questions of law have been formulated for deciding the present appeal: - i) Whether rejection of application under order 26 rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure has materially affected the decision? ii) Whether the appeal Court failed to exercise jurisdiction in refusing to admit additional evidence the demarcation report by revenue court, a subsequent event which materially affected the decision?