ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, J.-- By this common order, we propose to decide Civil Petitions Nos. 1091-L and 1092-L of 1999 as questions of law and facts are common in both of them.
2. Plaintiffs in these petitions were vendees of the suit land. Respondents as plaintiffs pre-empted this transition. Their suits were dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. However, in appeal, the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside and the suits were decreed. The said judgment of the appellate Court was affirmed in revision petition by the High Court through the impugned judgment. These petitions have been moved to assail the legality of the impugned judgment.
3. The main grievance urged before us was that the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was accepted without affording the petitioners an opportunity to rebut.
This was, however, conceded that this point was neither taken in the memo of revision in the High Court nor it finds any mention in the impugned judgment. Even in this Court, in the grounds of petition, this point has not been specifically raised. Even otherwise when the learned counsel was asked as to what the petitioners wanted to produce in rebuttal, he merely stated that the additional evidence led in the case did not pertain to the disputed land. In any case, the Jamabandis right from the year, 1931 have been brought on the record and there is nothing to show that this point of not affording opportunity had been seriously urged, as such, at this belated stage, it cannot be urged.
4. We are not inclined to go into the detail in the second point regarding deficiency in the Court fee and on that account incompetency of the petitions as it is too late to undertake this exercise at such a belated stage.