- (1.) JAGI Narayan Pandey and his son Lallan Pandey have preferred this appeal against the judgement and decree dated 7-8-1968 passed by II Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Ballia.
(2.) THE plaintiff-appellants brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,000/- on the basis of a Sarkhat dated 26- 1-1961 for Rs. 800/ -. THE appellants alleged that Nand Kishore Misra had taken a loan of Rs. 800/- from them at 5 Anna per cent per month as interest. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, East Ballia. In appeal the Civil and Sessions Judge, hereinafter called the Civil Judge, admitted several documents filed by the respondents and took oral evidence of one Hari Har Rai, Inspector Post Offices and Kamla Kant produced on behalf of the respondents. Then on an appraisal of the entire evidence the Civil Judge dismissed the appellants' suit. Sri G. P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellants contended : (1) The Civil Judge, as an appellate court, was not competent to have taken documentary and oral evidence produced by the respondents, and (2) The Civil Judge was not justified in rejecting the evidence of Shahanshah Husain, Government Finger Print Expert on the ground that the negatives of the photographs had not been produced.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents urged that the second appeal was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 102, C. P. C. This Section lays down that no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed two thousand rupees. In this Section originally the amount was five hundred rupees. This amount was substituted by the sum of two thousand rupees by U. P. Act No. XXIV of 1954 with effect from 30-11-1954. Thus on the date of the filing of this second appeal the amount in Sec. 102 was two thousand rupees. THErefore, on the very face, this appeal was not entertainable in this Court. THE Office of this Court made no report on this behalf. THErefore, this appeal was registered. Sri G. P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellants urged that as the lower appellate court had not exercised jurisdiction legally in admitting the additional evidence this Court could in its power of revision interfere, even though the second appeal did not lie, in view of the provisions of Sec. 102. In the case of Jay Chand Lal Babu v. Kamlaksha Chaudhury, AIR 1949 PC 239, it was held that if the erroneous decision had resulted in the subordinate Court exercising jurisdiction not vested in it by law, the High Court could interfere in its revisional power. We have now to determine whether the lower appellate court was wholly unjustified in admitting oral and documentary evidence of the respondents in appeal.;