Honble SHARMA, J.–Concurrent findings arrived at by the learned courts below have been assailed by the State of Rajasthan and another, the appellants herein, in the instant second appeal which was filed on August 27, 1991. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been submitted by the appellants today for taking the additional documents on record.

(2). Mr. Mohd. Rafiq, learned Additional Advocate General urged that since the trial court proceeded ex-parte, the appellants could not produce evidence and the suit of the plaintiff respondent was decreed. The first appellate court also did not properly appreciate the provisions contained in Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and the appeal was dismissed, therefore, opportunity to adduce evidence may be provided to the appellants in the interest of keeping the stream of justice pure and clear and findings under appeal should not be permitted to assume finality without the examination of the witnesses of the appellants.

(3). As per the facts pleaded in the plaint the tenanted premises was let out on oral tenancy by the respondent (for short `Landlord) to the appellants (for short `defendant) on a rent of Rs. 30/- per mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document