NANI BAI Vs. MITHULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This a revision against an order of the Dist. J. of Udaipur, dated 24-4-1950.

(2.) The petitioner, Mst. Nani Bai, sued Mithulal for ejectment from a shop & arrears of rent on the basis of a certain rent-note alleged to have been executed in favour of Gopalji Ratichand, & impleaded one Mohan Lal as deft, as the aforesaid tenant Mithulal alleged him to be the real owner & successor in title of Gopalji Ratichand. The tenant, Mithulal, set up the title of Mohan Lal as owner of the property on the basis of an alleged adoption by Nani Bai to her husband Onkarlal. Certain issues were struck by the trial Court, & it was found that the plff. was the successor in title of Gopalji Ratichand, & decreed the suit. On appeal by Mithulal & Mohan Lal, the learned Dist. J., was of opinion that certain documentary evidence filed by Mohan Lal had not been properly proved, & while holding that the appellant was not entitled to produce further evidence, directed the lower Court to examine certain witnesses as Court witnesses. The plff. has filed this revision, & it is contended that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to direct taking of additional evidence as the conditions requisite for the exercise of discretion under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C., did not exist.

(3.) The revision is, accordingly, accepted, the order of the lower Court is set aside, & the case is remanded to that Court for decision of the appeal on merits. Costs of this Court will abide the result of the appeal in the lower Court.