# Ramakant Dubey Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1285
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-09-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2002
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Tripathi(Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramakant-dubey-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-42690
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

convictionoffence under section 468, 471, 420 IPCreadwith 511-allegations revisionist based
upon forged letter alleged to be issued by
P.M.O-tried to get promotion-conviction
solely based upon statement under section
313 Cr.P.C.-as well as expert opinion who
admitted during cross examination that-he
compared admitted hand writing with
photo
state
copy
of
original
letter
presuming it to be original-held-both Courts
below committed great illegality-in view of
Apex Court verdict-statement (u/s 313
Cr.P.C.)can not be utilized as material for
conviction similarly-opinion of hand writing
expert
without
original
document-no
conclusive opinion-finding based upon
surmises not sustainable.

Held: Para-24
From the above discussion it is clear that
prosecution has failed to prove the
original
document.
The
original
document was even not produced in the
Court. There is no evidence to show that
the allegedly that the photo-stat letter
sent to the Office of Regional Manager
and
Divisional
Manager,
National
Insurance Company are true, photo-stat
of the original document. The expert PW
5 has given his finding on the basis of
photo-stat letter comparing it with the
admitted handwriting. He himself has
admitted that he has presumed that the
photo-stat letter is true photo-stat of the
original letter. Thus, there is nothing on
record to show that the original letter
was in the handwriting of the accused
person. In the statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C, the accused has not admitted
that he has sent the letter to the
Regional Manager and Divisional Office.

Case Law discussed:
1996 Criminal Law Journal 3237; AIR 1977 SC
1091; AIR 2004 SC 3084; AIR 1979 SC 1414;
AIR 2002 SC 3582; AIR 1969 Alld. 423; AIR
1978 SC 840; AIR 1978 SC 1091.

## Text

3 All] Ramakant Dubey Vs. State of U.P.
1285
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL- SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI(II),J.

Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2002

Ramakant Dubey
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, Sri V.P. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Bireshwar Nath

Criminal
Revision-
against
convictionoffence under section 468, 471, 420 IPCreadwith 511-allegations revisionist based
upon forged letter alleged to be issued by
P.M.O-tried to get promotion-conviction
solely based upon statement under section
313 Cr.P.C.-as well as expert opinion who
admitted during cross examination that-he
compared admitted hand writing with
photo
state
copy
of
original
letter
presuming it to be original-held-both Courts
below committed great illegality-in view of
Apex Court verdict-statement (u/s 313
Cr.P.C.)can not be utilized as material for
conviction similarly-opinion of hand writing
expert
without
original
document-no
conclusive opinion-finding based upon
surmises not sustainable.

Held: Para-24
From the above discussion it is clear that
prosecution has failed to prove the
original
document.
The
original
document was even not produced in the
Court. There is no evidence to show that
the allegedly that the photo-stat letter
sent to the Office of Regional Manager
and
Divisional
Manager,
National
Insurance Company are true, photo-stat
of the original document. The expert PW
5 has given his finding on the basis of
photo-stat letter comparing it with the
admitted handwriting. He himself has
admitted that he has presumed that the
photo-stat letter is true photo-stat of the
original letter. Thus, there is nothing on
record to show that the original letter
was in the handwriting of the accused
person. In the statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C, the accused has not admitted
that he has sent the letter to the
Regional Manager and Divisional Office.

Case Law discussed:
1996 Criminal Law Journal 3237; AIR 1977 SC
1091; AIR 2004 SC 3084; AIR 1979 SC 1414;
AIR 2002 SC 3582; AIR 1969 Alld. 423; AIR
1978 SC 840; AIR 1978 SC 1091.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Tripathi (II), J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for
respondent.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed by RamaKant Dubey, son of Late Sri
Ram Adhar Dubey, resident of Village-
Dhaskari, P.S. Bhadohi, District Bhadohi
(Varanasi) challenging the order dated
15.01.2002 passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge-8th, Lucknow in
Criminal Appeal No.01 of 1998 by which
the
criminal
appeal
filed
against
conviction order dated 16.12.1997 passed
by Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) was
dismissed.

3. As per prosecution version, a first
information
report
was
lodged
by
Superintendent of Police on 29.1.1986
that accused was working as an agent in
National Insurance Company, Bhadohi
Branch Office Varanasi. He has moved an
application for appointment on the post of
Inspector/ Development Officer in the
year 1985. But due to certain reasons his
1286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
name was not considered. After that a
recommendatory letter was received in
the Office of Regional Manager National
Insurance Company by Sri G.S. Narang
the Regional Manager. The letter was
allegedly written by Secretary, Sri S.
Singh allegedly from Prime Minister's
residence which was found forged. On
this first information report, a case under
Sections
420/511/468/471
IPC
was
registered. The matter was investigated by
CBI, Lucknow and charge-sheet was
submitted against the accused. At the time
of trial, charge under Sections 420, 468
and 420 read with Section 511 IPC was
framed against the accused who pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution in order to prove its
case, examined PW1 M.M.S. Beg, Branch
Manager, National Insurance Company,
P.W.2
B.R.
Khatri
retired
Senior
Divisional Manager National Insurance
Company, P.W.3 G.S. Narang, retired
Assistant Manager, P.W.4 Ashok Babu,
Inspector C.B.I., P.W. 5 Amar Singh,
Handwriting Expert and P.W. 6 Om
Prakash
Mishr,
Section
Officer
(Administration) Prime Minister's Office.
Documentary evidence was adduced from
the side of prosecution which is the
envelope containing that letter exhibit-K1 to K-16. Learned Court below after
going through the evidence and hearing
the parties convicted the accused under
Sections 468, 471,420 read with Section
511 IPC and convicted him to undergo
one year simple imprisonment in each
Section and Rs.500/- fine and in default of
payment of fine he was directed to
undergo one month simple imprisonment.

5. Appeal against that order was
preferred being Criminal Appeal No.1/98,
which too was dismissed on 15.1.2002.
Feeling aggrieved this criminal revision
has been filed.

6. It was argued from the side of the
revisionist that the letter which is alleged
to be forged has not been produced in
original. Photostat copy was produced and
proved without comparing with the
original. It was also submitted that the
sample handwriting was compared by the
handwriting expert from that of the
photostat and the entire judgment is based
on conjectures and surmises.

7. It was also submitted that without
original being proved no case of forgery
is made out. It was also submitted that the
expert report is very weak type of
evidence and without any corroboration it
is dangerous to convict the accused. It
was also submitted that statement of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is not
evidence and no conviction can be based
on the basis of the statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was also submitted
that the statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. should be read as a whole and not
as a part. Without considering the
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as a
whole, the conviction by the trial Court
and
dismissal
of
appeal
both
are
erroneous. It was also submitted that both
the courts have not considered the
evidence in proper perspective and thus
the finding is perverse.

8. This revisional court has not been
entrusted with the powers of appellate court.
As this Court has only to see the irregularity
and illegality in the order and for deciding
that whether the order is perverse, analysis of
the evidence can be done.

9. In the first information report
which was lodged on 29.1.86 at about 10
3 All] Ramakant Dubey Vs. State of U.P.
1287
am in Police Station- Bhadohi alleges that
Ramakant Dubey attempted to commit the
offence of cheating for getting himself
appointed at the post of Development
Officer/
Inspector
of
NIC,
Bhadohi,Varanasi by adopting fraudulent
means inasmuch as he sent/got sent a
forged recommendation letter No. Patrank
2/Delhi/34/3 dated 21.1.1985 purported to
have been issued by one Sri S. Singh,
Secretary to the Prime Minister of India
addressed to G. S. Narang, Regional
Manager, NIC, Lucknow with copy to
Divisional Office, NIC, Varanasi for
favour of his appointment at the post of
Development Officer/ Inspector at NIC,
Bhadohi, Varanasi. List of annexures
shows that a photostat letter was sent
purportedly issued from Prime Minister's
House New Delhi. This clearly goes to
show that a photo-stat letter was sent to
Sri G.S. Narang, Regional Manager, NIC,
Lucknow and another Photo-stat copy
was sent to Divisional Office, NIC,
Varanasi. This clearly means to say that
there was no original, which was
produced in the Court and the accused
was not confronted with the original copy
of that alleged recommendation letter. It
also clearly goes to show that the
handwriting expert has given his opinion
on the basis of examination of writing on
photostat letter.

10. After evidence, he has in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
denied that the matter written in Exhibit
K-2 Q-5 and Q-6 is written in his own
handwriting. He has only admitted that
application Exhibit K-2 is under his
signature. He has further admitted that
during
investigation
his
handwriting
sample was taken by the Investigating
Officer. He has further stated that
previously a criminal case under Sections
43 of 1983 has proceeded against him in
which he has been acquitted and the
prosecution has filed a criminal appeal
which is pending.

11. A perusal of the trial court
judgment reveals that the only basis of
conviction is expert report of handwriting
and certain admissions of revisionist
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is no
corroborative evidence that this letter was
sent by the accused.

12. In the case of S. Gopal Reddy
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1996
Criminal Law Journal 3237, the Apex
Court has held as under;

"The evidence of an expert is a rather
weak type of evidence and the Courts do
not generally consider it as offering
'conclusive' proof and, therefore, safe to
rely upon the same without seeking
independent and reliable corroboration. In
Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1977 SC 1091, while dealing with
evidence of a handwriting expert, this
Court opined (at p.1093):

"We think it would be extremely
hazardous to condemn the appellant
merely on the strength of opinion
evidence of a handwriting expert. It is
now well settled that expert opinion must
always be received with great caution and
perhaps none so with more caution than
the opinion of a handwriting expert. There
is a profusion of precedential authority
which holds that it is unsafe to base a
conviction solely on expert opinion
without substantial corroboration. This
rule has been universally acted upon and
it has almost become a rule of law. It was
held by this Court in Ram Chandra V.
State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 381, that it is
1288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion
as sufficient basis for conviction, but it
may be relied upon when supported by
other items of internal and external
evidence. This Court again pointed out in
Ishwari Prasad V. Md. Isa, AIR 1963 SC
1728, that expert evidence of handwriting
can never be conclusive because it is,
after all, opinion evidence, and this view
was reiterated in Shashi Kumar V.
Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529, where
it was pointed out by this Court that
expert's evidence as to handwriting being
opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take
the place of substantive evidence and
before acting on such evidence, it would
be desirable to consider whether it is
corroborated
either
by
clear
direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
This Court had again occasion to consider
the evidentiary value of expert pinion in
regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v.
State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326, and it
uttered a note of caution pointing out that
it would be risky to find a conviction
solely on the evidence of a handwriting
expert before acting upon such evidence,
the Court must always try to see whether
it is corroborated by other evidence, direct
or circumstantial."

13. In the case of Magan Bihari Lal
Vs. State of Panjab AIR 1977 Supreme
Court 1091, the Apex Court has held in
Para 7 as under :

"In the first place, it may be noted
that the appellant was at the material time
a Guard in the employment of the
Railway
Administration
with
his
Headquarters at Agra and he had nothing
to do with the train by which Wagon No.
SEKG .40765 was dispatched from
Munda to Bikaner, nor with the train
which carried that wagon from Agra to
Ludhiana. He was not a Guard on either
of these two trains. There was also no
evidence to connect the appellant with the
theft of the blank Railway Receipt at
Banmore Station. It is indeed difficult to
see how the appellant, who was a small
employee in the Railway Administration,
could have possibly come into possession
of the blank Railway Receipt from
Banmore Station which was not within his
jurisdiction at any time. It is true that B.
Lal, the handwriting expert, deposed that
the handwriting on the forged Railway
Receipt Ex. PW 10/A was that of the
same person who wrote the specimen
handwritings Ex. 27/37 to 27/57, that is
the appellant, but we think it would be
extremely hazardous to condemn the
appellant merely on the strength of
opinion evidence of a hand- writing
expert. It is now well settled that expert
opinion must always be received with
great caution and perhaps none so with
more caution than the opinion of a
handwriting expert. There is a profusion
of precendential authority which holds
that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely
on expert opinion without substantial
corroboration.
This
rule
has
been
universally acted upon and it has almost
become a rule of law. It was held by this
Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P.
AIR 1957 SC 381 that it is unsafe to treat
expert handwriting opinion as sufficient
basis for conviction, but it may be relied
upon when supported by other items o[
internal and external evidence. This Court
again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad v.
Md. Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert
evidence of handwriting can never be
conclusive because it is, after all, opinion
evidence, and this view was reiterated in
Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR
1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by
this Court that expert's evidence as to
3 All] Ramakant Dubey Vs. State of U.P.
1289
handwriting being opinion evidence can
rarely, if ever, take the place of
substantive evidence and before acting on
such evidence, it would be desirable to
consider whether it is corroborated either
by
clear_
direct
evidence
or
by
Circumstantial evidence. This Court had
again occasion to consider the evidentiary
value of expert opinion in regard to
handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of
M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a
note of caution pointing out that it would
be risky to found a conviction solely on
the evidence of a handwriting expert and
before acting upon such evidence, the
court must always try to see whether it is
corroborated by other evidence, direct or
circumstantial. It is interesting to note that
the same view is also echoed in the
judgments of English and American
courts. Vide Gurney v. Longlands, (1822)
5 B & Ald 330 and Matter of Alfred
Fogter's Will, 34 MIch 21. The Supreme
Court of Michigan pointed out in the last
mentioned case: "Every one knows how
very unsafe it is to rely upon any one's
opinion
concerning
the
niceties
of
penmanship--Opinions
are
necessarily
received, and may be valuable, but at best
this kind of evidence is a necessary evil."
We need not subscribe to the extreme
view expressed by the Supreme Court of
Michigan, but there can be no doubt that
this type of evidence being opinion
evidence, is by its very nature, weak and
infirm and cannot of itself form and the
basis
for
a
conviction.
We
must,
therefore, try to see whether,in the present
case, there is, apart from the evidence of
the handwriting expert B. Lal, any other
evidence connecting the appellant with
the offence."

14. A careful perusal of the above
decision of Apex Court it is clear that it is
unsafe to base a conviction solely on
expert
opinion
without
substantial
corroboration. This type of evidence
being opinion evidence is weak and
infirm and cannot of itself form the basis
of conviction.

15. There is one more and second
aspect in this case, admittedly photo-stat
letter was received in the Office of
Regional
Manager,
NIC,
Lucknow.
Admittedly, the handwriting expert never
had occasion to examine the original
document, he has examined and compared
the sample in handwriting of accused
from the photo-stat letter. Naturally, the
handwriting expert of indicating in
examining the pain pressure and pain
pause.

16. A perusal of the record also
reveals that the photographs taken by the
handwriting expert and its negative are
not in the file.

17. A perusal of the statement of
PW 5 (Amar Singh) reveals that he has
received the documents from the Office of
CBI, Lucknow for comparing the sample.
The specimen documents are marked 5 to
16 and he compared the specimen
handwriting with photo-stat handwriting.
He has nowhere stated that he has taken
photographs himself and enlarged it. He
has also not filed the photographs and
negatives of the photo taken of original
and specimen handwriting. He has further
admitted
in
cross-examination
when
original document is not given to him. He
presumes that the photostat is correct
photo-stat of the original and there is no
error in the photo-stat.

18. This statement clearly goes to
show that original documents has not
1290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been compared. It is also very clearly that
until and unless, the original is proved to
be forged. The photostat cannot be said to
be a forged document. This creates doubt
in the prosecution version.

19. Now coming to the statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of which
learned trial court has given emphasis on
the fact that though, the accused had
denied his handwriting on the disputed
document but it is proved by the evidence
of handwriting expert. The trial court has
further given specific finding in his
judgment that the forged document has
not been proved to be sent in the
Divisional Office, but it has been proved
that this forged document has been sent to
Divisional
Manager
Lahura
Veer,
Varanasi in this finding, the trial court is
blank head and call to them if the
prosecution is not proved that any forged
letter was sent in the divisional office then
how can be said a forged letter was sent in
divisional office. The trial court has
further held that prosecution has not
proved the seizure memo by which the
forged recommendatory letter was seized
orders.

20. The statement of that accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is concerned,
in the Case of Devendra Kumar Singla
Vs. Baldev Kirshan Singla AIR 2004
Supreme Court 3084, the Apex Court
has held that the statement under Section
313 is not evidence. It is only the
accused's stand or version by way of
explanation, when incriminating materials
appearing against him are brought to his
notice.

21. In the case of Banamali Samal
Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1979, Supreme
Court 1414, the Apex Court has held that
conviction cannot be based on the
statement of accused alone.

22. In the case of Mohan Singh Vs.
Prem Singh & Another AIR 2002
Supreme Court 3582, the Apex Court
has held in Para 28 as under :

The statement made in defence by
accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. can
certainly be taken aid of to lend credence
to the evidence led by the prosecution, but
only a part of such statement under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure cannot be made the sole basis
of his conviction. The law on the subject
is almost settled the statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused can
either be relied in whole or in part. It may
also be possible to rely on the inculpatory
part of his statement if the exculpatory
part is found to be false on the basis of the
evidence led by the prosecution. See
Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar, (AIR
1969 SC 422):

"In this case the exculpatory part of
the statement in Ex.6 is not only
inherently improbable but is contradicted
by the other evidence. According to this
statement, the injury which the appellant
received was caused by the appellant's
attempt to catch hold of the hand of Lal
Mohan Sharma to prevent the attack on
the victim. This was contradicted by the
statement of the accused himself under
Section 342 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he
had received the injury in a scuffle with a
herdsman. The injury found on his body
when he was examined by the doctor on
13th October 1961 negatives both these
versions.
Neither of these
versions
accounts for the profuse bleeding which
led to his washing his clothes and having
a bath in the river Patro, the amount of
3 All] Ramakant Dubey Vs. State of U.P.
1291
bleeding and the washing of the bloodstrains being so considerable as to attract
the attention of Ram Kishore Pandey, PW
17 and asking him about the cause
thereof. The bleeding was not a simple
one as his clothes all got stained with
blood as also his books, his exercise book
and his belt and shoes. More than that the
knife which was discovered on his person
was found to have been stained with
blood according to the report of the
Chemical Examiner. According to the
post mortem report this knife could have
been the cause of the injuries on the
victim. In circumstances like these there
being enough evidence to reject the
exculpatory part of the statement of the
appellant in Ex.6 the High Court had
acted rightly in accepting the inculpatory
part and piercing the same with the other
evidence to come to the conclusion that
the appellant was the person responsible
for the crime."

23. In the case of Miss Hardevi
Malkani Vs. State and another AIR
1969 Allahabad 423, this Court has held
in Para 21 as under:

21. Reliance has been placed on the
case of Mohideen Abdul Kadir v.
Emperor, (1904) ILR 27 Mad 238. His
Lordship the Chief Justice of the Madras
High Court relying on an earlier decision
in Basant Kumar Ghatak v. Queen
Empress, (1903) ILR 26 Cal 49 took the
view that a gap in the evidence of the
prosecution cannot be filled by any
statement made by the accused in his
examination under Section 342 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. I am in
respectful agreement with the view taken
in that case and I am of opinion that even
where a matter had been admitted by the
accused in his or her statement under
Section 342 Cr. P. C., the prosecution had
to prove such facts, for want o proof of
which, the prosecution must fail. I have,
therefore, to examine the evidence on the
record in this case in order to find out if
Ex. Ka. 2 has been proved according to
law or not.

24. From the above discussion it is
clear that prosecution has failed to prove
the original document. The original
document was even not produced in the
Court. There is no evidence to show that
the allegedly that the photo-stat letter sent
to the Office of Regional Manager and
Divisional Manager, National Insurance
Company are true, photo-stat of the
original document. The expert PW 5 has
given his finding on the basis of photostat letter comparing it with the admitted
handwriting. He himself has admitted that
he has presumed that the photo-stat letter
is true photo-stat of the original letter.
Thus, there is nothing on record to show
that the original letter was in the
handwriting of the accused person. In the
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the
accused has not admitted that he has sent
the letter to the Regional Manager and
Divisional Office.

25. The case is totally based on
circumstantial evidence and there are big
gaps in the chain of events.

26.

Doubt
would
be
called
reasonable, they are free from zest of
abstract speculation. Law cannot afford
any
favourit
other
than
truth.
To
constitute reasonable doubt, it must be
free from an over emotional response.

27. In the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Ashok Kumar Srivastava AIR 1992
Supreme Court 840 and in the case of
1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Inder Singh Vs. State of Delhi AIR
1978 Supreme Court, 1091, the Apex
Court has held that a reasonable doubt is
not a imaginary, trivial or merely possible
doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason
and common sense. It must grow out of
the evidence of the case. If a case is
proved perfectly, it is argued that it is
artificial, if a case has some inevitable
flaws because human beings are prone to
err, it is argued that it is too imperfect.
Vague hunches cannot take place of
judicial evaluation.

28. Judging the instant case from the
above parameters it is clear that the
prosecution has not been able to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt and both
the Courts have erred in convicting the
accused on the basis of evidence available
on record and the appellate court has also
erred in dismissing the appeal.

29. From the above discussion, I am
of the view that the findings of both the
courts below are perverse and not based
on record and liable to be set aside.

30. In the result, the criminal
revision is liable to be allowed, and is
hereby allowed. The revisionist/accused
Ramakant Dubey is acquitted giving
benefit of doubt. The accused is on bail
and he need not surrender before the trial
court.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Second Appeal Defective No.50 of 2008

Badloo Ram

 ...Appellant
Versus
Mishree Lal @ Ram Tej & Ors. Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.C. Teiari, Pt. D.R. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashish Mishra

C.P.C.-Section 100- Second Appeal-filed
11
years
7
months
and
7
days
unexplained delay-if delay condonedamount to misuse of process of lawappeal dismissed on ground of delay
itself.

Held: Para-31
In the present case, I do not find any
sufficient reason to condone the delay,
as such, I am of the view that the
judgment cited by the learned counsel
for appellant is of no help to him.

Case Law discussed:
(2005) 4 SCC 741; 2009 AIR SCW 1537; AIR
1998 SC 3222; 2006(24) LCD 1239

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)

1. Heard Mr. D.R. Shukla, learned
counsel for appellant as well as Mr.
Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for
respondents and perused the record.

2. This second appeal has been filed
under
Section
100
Code
of
Civil
Procedure (for short 'the Code') against
the judgment and order dated 29.2.1996
passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 62 of
1995 (Badloo Ram Vs. Mishree Lal and
Others) arising out of the judgment and
decree
dated
09.01.1995
passed
in
Regular Suit No. 553 of 1991 (Mishree
Lal and Others Vs. Badloo Ram)
whereby the suit filed by the respondentsplaintiffs has been decreed in their favour
and the first appeal preferred against the
said judgment
has
been
dismissed.