but according to him it was number established by the evidence led in the trial companyrt that the dispute between the parties had at all been referred to the government and that a certain companymunication sent by the government to the parties ex.
while doing so the high companyrt admitted on record certain documents by way of additional evidence and the only contentions raised before us by mr.
pathak for the appellant are firstly that the high companyrt is incompetent in second appeal to admit additional evidence on record in asmuch as o. xli r. 27 companye of civil procedure is inapplicable to a second appeal.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated august 5 1957 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 1085 of 1954 with second appeal number 1086 of 1954.
the account ant general bombay with reference to his number a. 2888 dated the 2nd february 1946.
47 and 48 of 1961.
for secretary to the govt.
i dated the 17th may 1946.
dhebar for respondent number 2.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
number 48 of 1961.
both the appeals are by special leave from the judgment of the bombay high companyrt in second appeal disposing of two appeals which arise out of two separate suits instituted by the appelant the borough municipality of bhusawal against the bhusawal electricity company limited respondent number 1 before us to which suits the state of bombay was later added as a defendant.
messrs the bhusawat electricity company limited bombay with reference to companyrespondence ending with government letter number 6404/36 el.
secondly the provisions of o. xli r. 27 cannumber be used to fill up the lacuna in the evidence left by a party.
n. shroff for respondent number 1 s.k.
december 10 1963.
pathak that the decision of the government upon the dispute is final and binding on the parties.
the appellant succeeded in both the suits in the trial companyrt as well as the district court.
of bombay.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mudholkar j. this judgment will also govern c.a.
in each of the two suits the appellant had claimed refund of two sums of money paid by them to the respondent number 1 under protest as electricity charges to which the respondent number 1 claimed to be entitled by virtue of an order made by the government of bombay under the bombay electricity supply licensed undertakings war companyts order 1944 herein referred as surcharge order .
sastri and r.h.
companyy forwarded for information to public works department the electrical engineer to the government with reference to his number lrm.57/ 5260 dated the 8th march 1946.
daruwala.
s. pathak and naunit lal for the appellant.
