KIRAN DEVI Vs. SUBHASH CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this court impugning the order dated 20.4.2015, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by her seeking permission to lead additional evidence, was dismissed. The short contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier vide order dated 24.3.2015, the application in question, namely, for seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the form of sale deed dated 30.12.1994 was allowed, however, later on the case was transferred on the request of counsel for the defendants to other court and then to another court on account of annual general transfers of the officers, but the transferee court had taken up the application again and dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 20.4.2015, which was totally un -called for, as the application earlier allowed could not be taken up again and dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 1, though sought to argue that the application was not earlier allowed, however, while going through the same, he could not dispute this fact. He submitted that there was no good reason to allow the application, hence, the order was erroneous. He further submitted that in case the present petition is to be allowed, respondent No. 1 be given liberty to impugn the order dated 24.3.2015.

(3.) SUCH anomalous situation has not come up before this Court for the first time. Earlier also in Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 - M/s. S.K. Engineering Works and another v. Gurdip Singh and others, decided on 21.3.2012, an application was decided twice. To streamline decision of the applications, certain directions were issued, which are extracted below: