JAGIR KAUR Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No, 742 and 745 of 1988 as identical question of facts and law are involved in both these appeals

(2.) NOTING the following contention of the counsel, the appeal was admitted by the motion Bench.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has urged the same point for consideration without adverting to the merit of the case by vehemently contending that the Court despite having ordered vide zimni order to hear the application for additional evidence at the time of final disposal of the appeal, somehow not decided the same which has greatly prejudiced the case of the plaintiffs. The counsel further urged that documents sought to be adduced by way of additional evidence have, in fact, material bearing upon the case and otherwise too those are copies of the official record and are thus reliable. In any case, since the lower appellate Court has not adverted to the merit of the plea, relevancy admissibility or whether permission sought was to be granted or declined is presently not subject matter of adjudication The counsel accordingly prayed that in view of the admitted position that application for additional evidence has not been decided by the District Judge, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the case be remanded to the lower appellate Court for fresh adjudication directing the Court to decide the pending application for additional evidence.