Halayudh And Anr. vs Tek Chand And Ors. on 2 April, 1953
This is riot correct. The learned counsel admitted that the plaintiffs had to prove that they had spent Rs. 12,000/- in completing the work. This point has been clearly brought out in the second issue. He cited a number of rulings, e.g.--'Raghuraj Singh', v. Majid-un-nissa', A. I. R. 1925 Oudh 692 (B);--'Bhup Singh v. Prem Singh', AIR 1924 Lah 362 (C)--'Kari Bapanna v. Sunkari Yerramma', AIR 1923 Mad 718 (D);--'Tin Maung v. Mg. Po Htoo', AIR 1927 Rang 192 (E)',--'Sundara Rama Iyer v. Sathianathan', AIR 1927 Mad 1190 (E) and--'Province of Bihar v. Choudhary Balam Singh', AIR 1950 Pat 356' (G). None of these cases, how-ever, justified a remand, as in the present case, where the party was given another opportunity to prove its case although it failed to do so in the trial Court without any justification and in ispite of a clear issue. The order of remand in the present case was, therefore wholly unjustified. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents did not point out any evidence on the record from which it could be said that the plaintiffs had proved any part of their claim for compensation. Their suit was, therefore, liable to dismissal on findings on both the issues.