This is an appeal by the plaintiff who lost in both the courts below and it arises out of a suit for a permanent injunction against the defen­dant No. 1. restraining him from deport­ing the plaintiff from India to Pakistan. 2. The plaintiff's case briefly was that he was born in India and he is an Indian National residing in the district of Goalpara all along and that a deporta­tion order was served on him by the de­fendant No. 1 on the allegation that he is a Pak national. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for a permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1 as stated above. The defendants contested the suit denying all the averments of the plaintiff made in the plaint. According to the defendants, plaintiff is a Pak na­tional and he recently infiltrated into India without any passport or visa. 3. Upon the pleadings various is­sues were framed including one as to whe­ther the plaintiff is a citizen of India. The plaintiff examined as many as 5 wit­nesses in the case. No evidence was ad­duced by the defendants. On a considera­tion of the evidence of the plaintiff, the Munsiff held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was an Indian national and accordingly he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then preferred an appeal before the Assistant District. Judge. Goalpara and the latter also affirmed the decree of the Munsiff and dismissed the appeal and hence the plaintiff has come up with this second appeal. 4. The first contention of the learned advocate for the appellant before me is that the lower appellate court did not consider the evidence of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff-appellant at all and that non-consideration of such evi­dence amounts to an illegality calling for an interference with his -judgment and decree in the second appeal. His second contention was that the lower appellate court has wrongly drawn an adverse presumption against the plaintiff for non-examination of his maternal uncle Taslimuddin Sarkar. al­though the plaintiff examined this person as P. W. 5. This, it is contended, is an error committed by the learned Court be­low on the face of the record. Under the circumstances, it has been submitted that the decree appealed against is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Laskar. al­though the plaintiff examined this person as P. W. 5. This, it is contended, is an error committed by the learned Court be­low on the face of the record. Under the circumstances, it has been submitted that the decree appealed against is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Laskar. the learned advo­cate appearing for the State on the other hand contended that the learned court below considered the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and as such it cannot be said that he did not discuss the evidence adduced by the plaintiff at all. He further con­tended that it cannot be said that the lower court committed any error of law by not discussing the evidence of the other witnesses. 6. I find that there is sufficient force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The first ap­pellate Court, being the final court of facts, it is incumbent on it to consider all the evidence adduced by the parties in the case. It is seen from the judgment of the lower appellate court that he dis­cussed what the plaintiff-appellant did not prove; but he did not discuss the evidence of the witnesses who were ex­amined by the plaintiff in support of his case. Non-consideration of the evi­dence of P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 by the learned court below amounts to an illegality and it has vitiated the judgment. 7. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is also borne out by the record. It is seen that P. W. 5 Taslimuddin Sarkar is the maternal uncle of the plaintiff. It cannot therefore be said that the plaintiff did not examine his maternal uncle Tasli­muddin Sarkar as observed by the learned court below. The learned court below was therefore not justified in drawing an adverse presumption against the plain­tiff-appellant for non-examination of said Taslimuddin Sarkar. 8. In the result, the decree ap­pealed against must be set aside and I do accordingly. The appeal is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal on a consideration of all the evidence in accordance with law. The appeal will be disposed of expeditiously within a period of not more than three months from the receipt of the record in the court below. The appeal is allowed. Costs will abide the result of the appeal in the court below. Appeal allowed.