YASHPAL SINGH MALIK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 application for interim order and not on the point of admission. The caveator relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court 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. Accordingly 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 question 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 concerning the ownership of the suit property by Jagannath, the will made in respect of it by Smt. Ram Payari in favour of the plaintiff, the ownership of the plaintiff and his possession of the suit property, the ownership of the defendant and their possession thereon, valuation, limitation etc. Two advocate Commissioners were appointed during the trial of the suit. The first Commissioner was deputed at the instance of the plaintiff and he had held an ex parte inspection of the site. His report was on record. The second advocate Commissioner 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.