BRAHMDEO PATHAK Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention on behalf of the petitioner seeking revision is, to the effect, that the Court below committed an error by permitting the parties to lead evidence is itself misconceived.

(2.) WHEN the order of remand was made by the High Court on 23rd July, 1986 it was coupled with an observation that there would be "a rehearing in accordance with law and decide the case after recording a definite finding ...." The observation further states that should certain circumstances be existing then, ".... the burden shall be upon the defendants."

(3.) THE litigation is already pending since a very long time and it should be decided expeditiously. This revision has no merit. Dismissed.