DEEPAK MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsels for both the sides.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has decided the Civil Original Suit No. 142/2011 vide judgment dated 28th May, 2015 regarding recovery of the suit money but the learned trial Court has omitted to decide the application filed on 25th August, 2010 under Order 8, Rule 1A CPC by which, the defendant sought to produce the public document which was also referred in the written statement itself. The said document was the statement given by the father of the defendant Shri Chhagan Lal against the plaintiff-Ladu Singh. It was the defence of the defendant that on account of the statement given in the criminal proceedings, the suit has been fabricated against the defendant by the plaintiff.
(3.) On perusal of the record, it appears that on 25th August, 2010, two applications came to be filed on behalf of the defendant. One was filed under the provisions of Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and another under Order 8, Rule 1A CPC. The earlier application filed under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act came to be decided on 10th April, 2014 but the another application filed under Order 8, Rule 1A CPC was not decided and the suit came to be disposed by the judgment dated 28th May, 2015.;