Chhajju vs Ayub Ahmad

Rafique, J.—This is an application in revision from the decree of the Additional Judge of Meerut. It appears that the opposite party sued in the Court of the Munsif of Muzaffarnagar on the basis of a pro-note and the applicant denied the execution of the said pro-note. Both parties gave evidence and the Munsif disbelieving the evidence of the plaintiff-opposite party dismissed his claim. On appeal the learned Additional Judge could not make up his mind as to which of the two sets of witnesses were to be believed. After hearing the argument in the appeal he sent the pro-note to the Thumb Impression Bureau at Allahabad and on receipt of the report of the said bureau he accepted the appeal. It is said on behalf of the defendant-applicant that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge was unwarranted by law. I think that the contention for the applicant is correct. The learned Judge, if he wanted to take additional evidence, should have done so according to law. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is set aside. The learned Judge will dispose of the appeal according to law. Costs of this application are allowed to the applicant.