Macleod, C.J:— This rule must be discharged with costs. S. 115 of the Code does not apply to an order of a Court refusing to grant a review of its decision. The application for review was based on the allegation that the present applicants could bring evidence of Parvati's remarriage. There is no reason, as the Judge finds, why Parvati was not called when the case was decided. The Judge said:—
‘I am of opinion that as Parvati's existence was known to plaintiffs, as their heirship to Ganpati was disputed and there was an expression on it, it was their duty to produce evidence of Parvati's remarriage in the lower Court. They produced no evidence. The lower Court found in their favour without sufficient evidence and when the finding was set aside in revision they cannot be allowed to produce the evidence now. Supposing a finding of fact by a lower Court is reversed in appeal the party affected cannot be allowed to produce further evidence which he might has produced in the lower Court. There was nothing to prevent the plaintiffs producing Parvati as a witness in the lower Court, as she has been produced there, and it she refused to come, persons who were aware of her remarriage should have been called. But the plaintiffs made no effort to do so if the lower Court had found against them on the question of heirship on the ground that Parvati's remarriage was not proved they would not have allowed to produce further evidence on this point in revision.”.
2. That is a perfectly correct statement of the law.
3. The Judge having refused to grant a review on the ground that the evidence ought to have been produced in the lower Court, was justified in his decision.
4. Rule discharged.