JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment of the learned Member, Board of Revenue dated 22-10-75 in Second Appeal No. 31 of 1966-67/Jauapur, Ram Chandra Lal v. Smt. Sudhesara and others. 2. The only question raised on behalf of the petitioner before me is that the learned Member acted illegally in dismissing the second appeal when he heard only application for admitting additional evidence in second appeal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the dismissal of the second appeal in the circumstances of the present case is without observing the principles of natural justice. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the dispute between the parties had come to this Court at the earlier occasion and every point of controversy had been settled by the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3133 of 1967, Smt. Sudeshara and another v. Board of Revenue and others decided on May 6, 1969 hence the impugned judgment need not be interfered with and that the contesting opposite-party, Smt. Sudeshara, need not be dragged to another litigation. It has been emphasised that on technical ground there should not be any interference in writ jurisdiction. 4. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. I find that after refusing the prayer for admitting the papers, the learned Member has dismissed the appeal. In writ jurisdiction the petitioner had filed a review petition and on July 8, 1970, the learned Judge made the following observation : "In my opinion the document sought to be produced in evidence cannot be admitted in the proceedings for review. In fact, these documents could not have been read in evidence even in writ petition itself. The remedy to the applicant if any would move the appropriate revenue Court. In Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, a Division Bench of this Court on February 7, 1973, has made the following observation : "We direct that the Board of Revenue shall after giving the parties a fresh opportunity of being heard decide the second appeal afresh. It will be bound by the decision of the learned Single Judge of the points decided by him. It will be bound by the decision of the learned Single Judge of the points decided by him. The appellant will be entitled to raise such points before the Board of Revenue as well open to him in the second appeal. With this observation this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs." 5. In view of the above observations of the Judges of this Court, I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite-parties that the controversy between the parties had been finally settled in the earlier litigation A bare perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the learned Member has not dealt with the claim of the appellant nor he has indicated that the appellant did not advance any argument on the merits of the second appeal. 6. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has suggested that if sale-deed executed in favour of Mathura was bad in law, the plaintiff's share on the basis of sale-deed executed by other co-sharers cannot be enlarged. I think the aforesaid question needs determination by the second appellate court. 7. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the appeal was dismissed without hearing on merits. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the appeal was argued on merits and it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to allege that the appeal was dismissed without hearing on merits. But a perusal of the impugned judgment does not throw light that the learned Member applied his mind to the merits of the appeal. He has arrived at the dismissal of the second appeal just after refusing the prayer for admitting the papers. In the circumstances of this case, I believe the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the second appeal was dismissed without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to press the appeal. The impugned judgment being in violation of the principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is, accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment of learned Member, Sri P.C. Saxena, dated 22-10-75 is, hereby, quashed and the second appellate, court is directed to re-examine the point raised in the appeal before it hereafter. There will be no order as to costs.