DEVI SINGH Vs. BRIJ BASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated January 25, 1972 of Shri U.C. Dikshit, II Additional Civil Judge, Agra, allowing ad ditional evidence to be taken on behalf of the defendants opposite parties. The facts leading to this application are not disputed and may be narrated as follows. The plaintiffs applicants filed a suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the plot _of which the plaintiffs claimed to be the Bhumidhars and for the recovery of Ks. 500 as price of the crops alleged to have been cut and removed by the defendants. The defendants resisted the claim on various grounds. After taking evidence of the parties the Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim was correct and accordingly a dec ree was passed in their favour.

(2.) AGAINST that decree the defendants filed an appeal in the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge, Agra. During the course of the ap peal the defendants moved an application 34-C for filing some docu ments in order to point out certain mistakes that have crept in the documents filed by them before. After hearing the parties the Court below allowed the application 34-C and allowed the defendants to file additional evidence in the case. Against the above order the plaintiffs applicants have come up in revision before me, and have questioned the legality or validity of the order passed by the Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by the defendants oppo site parties that the order of the Court below does not amount to a case decided and as such it is not revisable under Section 115, C.P.C.

(3.) THE contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties that by allow ing additional evidence to the defendants opposite parties the Court below has not decided any case either the whole of it or any part of it and as such no revision lies. The learned counsel for the opposite parties drew my attention to the case in Harvenchal Kunwar v. Kanhai Lal 4 Indian Cases 878 in which it has held as follows: