- (1.) Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Counsel for the plaintiffappellant and Sri A.P. Srivastava, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Through this Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, the plaintiff-appellant had assailed the judgment and decree dated 2.2.2000, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bareily, Bareily in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1998 reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1993, passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge, Bareily in Original Suit No. 143 of 1977.
(3.) While admitting this Second Appeal in the year 2000, following substantial questions of law were formulated by the Court: (a) Whether the learned Appellate Court has reversed the judgment of Trial court on the basis of irrelevant consideration and caused substantial failure of justice? (b) Whether any oral evidence was admissible for contents of document in view of Section 59 of Indian Evidence Act? (c) Whether burden of proof has wrongly been fixed upon the plaintiff to produce evidence in respect of delegation of power either by Housing Commissioner or by Housing Board to the Assistant Housing Commissioner, while in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the fact relating to delegation of power which is especially within the knowledge of the respondents? (d) Whether the rights of the highest bidder could be defeated by the subsequent rules of Avas Evam Vikas (Disposal of Property) Rules, 1980 and in pursuance of the changed scheme?;