SATYA NARAIN Vs. LAKSHMI NARAIN PURWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. When the matter was taken up for hearing on the point of admission, the caveator desired a right of audition. The appellant objected stating that the caveator had a right of being heard only on an application, e. g. on the applica tion for interim order and not on the point of admission. The caveator relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1987 All 360, wherein it was held that although Order XLI, Rule 11 did not grant a right of hearing at the admission stage to the caveator, but the court had every authority to hear him for the ends of justice as justice was likely to be done if the two sides were heard. Accord ingly the caveator was allowed, at this stage, only to urge that the substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal were not at all substantial.

(2.) THE parties were heard not only on the above question but also on the ques tion as to what was a substantial question of law in terms of Section 100, C. P. C. and if any such substantial question of law was there for the purpose of admitting the appeal.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleading the trial Court had framed several issues con cerning the ownership of the suit property by Jagannath, the Will made in respect of it by Smt. Ram Payari in favour of the plain tiff, the ownership of the plaintiff and his possession of the suit property, the owner ship of the defendant their possession thereon, valuation, limitation etc. Two ad vocate commissioners were appointed during the trial of the suit. The first com missioner was deputed at the instance of the plaintiff and he had held an ex pane inspection of the site. His report was on record. The second advocate commis sioner had gone at the instance of the defendants and his report was also on record. The learned trial Court, after a discussion of the cases of the parties and the evidence on record, had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.