JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J.- The only point raised in this Second Appeal was that the lower appellate court was in error in having refused to rely on an admission of the defendants' father, which was contained in a judgment of the Nyaya Panchayat. The lower appellate court has observed that the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat had been set aside on revision, and moreover a copy of the statement of the defendants' father that he was supposed to have made before the Nyaya Panchayat had not been filed by the plaintiff. According to the lower appellate court, the trial court was not justified in relying on the judgment of the Nyaya Panchayat as an admission of the defendants' father. Learned counsel referred me to a decision of the Nagpur High Court in Chandulal v. Pushkar Raj, AIR 1952 Nagpur 271 , in this context. In paragraph 14 thereof, it has been stated that in Krishnasami Ayyangar v. Rajgopala Ayyangar, 18 Mad. 73, a statement amounting to an admission which was contained in a judgment was received in evidence under Section 35 as an entry in a record made by a public servant in the course of his duty and that their Lordships of the Privy Council observed in the Gorakhpur case that there is a much to be said for the view taken in Krishnasami Ayyangar v. Rajgopala Ayyangar (supra) see Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sunder Mal, 1956 All. 468 at page 490. The statement of the defendants' father maintained by the Nyaya Panchayat would surely be part of the public record and a copy of it would have been admissible as an admission of the defendants' father, but the reproduction of what was pleaded or said by the defendant father in his statement before the Nyaya Panchayat may not be the true version of the statement of the defendants' father. That would only be the Nyaya Panchayat's interpretation of what the defendants' father stated before it. It cannot be said to be the admission of the defendants' father. Since the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat was set aside in revision, it can have no evidentiary value as a decision between the parties. I do not think that the judgment under appeal would be said to be erroneous on the ground that the lower appellate court ruled out the contents of the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat as inadmissible. Since the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat was set aside in revision, it can have no evidentiary value as a decision between the parties. I do not think that the judgment under appeal would be said to be erroneous on the ground that the lower appellate court ruled out the contents of the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat as inadmissible. 2. No other point was pressed before me. 3. Dismissed under order 41 rule 11, C.P.C.