K.P.Singh - (1.) THE petitioners' prayer for adducing oral evidence to prove the Will set up by them has been rejected by the appellate authority through its order dated 17-7-1986. Against that order revision has failed on the ground that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority was in the nature of an interlocutory order. Aggrieved by the orders of the consolidation authorities the petitioners have approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends before me that the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be termed as interlocutory order in the facts and circumstances of the present case. THErefore, the revisional court was patently wrong in not entertaining the revision petition After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners I am not aggreeable to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority would not be in the nature of interlocutory order. Therefore, the present writ petition has no legs to stand. Two rulings have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention. One of them is reported in 1987 AWC 945. The aforesaid ruling has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The bar of provisions of section 49 of the UP CH Act goes to the route of the matter and decision of a particular case, therefore, it would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case wherein only the petitioners' prayer for adducing evidence has been rejected. However, the ends of justice demands that it may be indicated that technicalities of Civil Procedure Code or Evidence Act would be inapplicable to the proceedings before the consolidation authorities. In such a circumstance, the refusal of the petitioners' prayer for adducing oral evidence at the appellate stage is not reasonable one. Even at the stage of revision under the provisions of the UP CH Act the revisional court can take additional evidence and decide the claims of the parties finally. Therefore, the refusal of the appellate authority in not accepting the petitioners' prayer does not appear to me reasonable. Hereafter if the petitioners approach the appellate authority and pray for adducing evidence to prove the Will set up by them, the appellate authority may reconsider the petitioners' prayer in the light of the above observations made by me in this case. One of the golden principles is to cut short the litigation between the parties. If the appellate authority decides on the evidence before it there is greater likelihood that the revisional court may take contrary view and remand the case or take additional evidence to do justice between the parties. Therefore, it is desirable on the part of the appellate authority to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to prove the Will set up by them without indulging into any technicality. True that the appellate authority has rejected the petitioners' prayer for adducing oral evidence but I think that in the light of the observations made above the appellate authority will have ample power to reconsider the question regarding adducing oral evidence to prove the Will with a view to shorten the litigation between the parties.
(3.) WITH the above observations this writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage.;