RANGILA SINGH Vs. JAGTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated 7.9.1994, vide which he allowed the production of additional evidence. When this appeal came up before the learned Single Judge on 20.4.1995, learned counsel for the respondents contended that no appeal was maintainable against an order permitting additional evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant conceded to this contention praying the appeal to be treated as revision petition. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that no revision petition would be maintainable in view of proviso (a) to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Again the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 2.5.1995. After hearing the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge admitted the case to a Division Bench.

(2.) THE facts are that the suit filed by the appellant was decreed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge and the appeal was filed by some of the respondents against it. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants in the appeal moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of the original Will dated 2.6.1987 registered on 23.9.1987 by way of additional evidence. This application was allowed and it was also observed that the appellants in this appeal can also examine the attesting witness and scribe of the will to prove the original will and the present appellant/plaintiff was also given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on the proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 115 is a provision regarding filing revision. Proviso 1 to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as under :