NAGAMULLA NARAYANA Vs. EDAVALL RAJI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal:

(2.) Sri Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing appellant had pointed out to the relevant portions of the findings which had been recorded by the appellate Court and would contend that the way in which the evidence had been dealt with by the appellate Court, the final Court of fact, is totally unsatisfactory. The learned Counsel also had specifically pointed out the non-consideration of the oral evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also further pointed out that proper points for consideration had not been framed by the appellate Court as contemplated by Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also stated by the learned Counsel representing appellant that though it was observed that LA. No. 1120/95 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., for reception of additional evidence is liable to be dismissed, no separate order as such had been made.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Bhankatlal Mandhani with all vehemence would contend that even if these documents said to have been filed by way of additional evidence to be considered, it would not seriously alter the situation and even otherwise, since none of the conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been satisfied, the question of receiving these documents would not arise. The learned Counsel also in all fairness would submit that though the oral evidence had not been appreciated in detail or at length, the learned Judge had referred to the oral evidence and pointed out that the oral evidence is inconsistent and also further referred to the documents available on record and ultimately dismissed the appeal and inasmuch as concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below, in a second appeal, this is not a fit case to be interfered with.