JUDGMENT Reliance, Shri R.D. Jain, placed on this Court's decision in Dharamwati Bai's case ( AIR 1991 MP 18 ) to submit that whether Ram Bai, the vendor of the defendants/appellant died in the year 1949 or 1950 or in 1956 was immaterial. The fact which was material was her possession of the suit land and of her acquiring title thereon in virture of her possession as held in Dharamwati Bai, It is his submission that trial Court rightly, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit who had assailed Ram Bai's sale on the ground that he had no title to the land as Puran was not her husband and that Ram Bai otherwise also had no proprietary right, interest or title which she could pass by the impugned sale. Before me, in this appeal; Shri N.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondents, has argued vehemently that there is no scope for my interference because there is a clear-cut finding of the Court below that Ram Bai was not Puran 's widow. Unfortunately, that finding is very much assailed in this appeal and that is the bone of contention between the parties in this appeal. Shri R.D. Jain, submit that on a technical ground, the document, Ex. D/10, has been held inadmissible and reliance on that of the trial Court to dismiss plaintiff's suit has been held inappropriate. He submit; that, that document clinches the issue agitated hotly in this appeal because in that document, there is dear averment of plaintiff No.1, Dayalal, who had instituted that suit against Ram Bai, that she was Pumn 's widow and it is also submitted that in that suit, Dayalal claimed only 112 share in the suit property, admitting Ram Bai to be the owner of the other 1/2 share of the suit property. Two documents, Ex. D/9 and Ex. D/10 obviously have a crucial role to play to determine crucial issue surfacing for decision in this appeal. Ex. D/10, containing admission of plaintiff No.1, Dayalal, is the copy of the plaint of the suit he had filed earlier in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II,. Basoda. Ex. D/9 is certified copy of the Register of suits of that Court is which there is entry concerning the suit with respect to which the plaint was proved in the trial Court through D. W. 1. Basoda. Ex. D/9 is certified copy of the Register of suits of that Court is which there is entry concerning the suit with respect to which the plaint was proved in the trial Court through D. W. 1. It is true, an objection was raised to the admissibility of Ex. D/10 and that remained undecided by the trial Court. Still, the trial Court relied on that document, but the lower appellate Court found that reliance inappropriate because of the question of admissibility had not been decided and he decided that in appeal against the defendants. It is submitted by Shri R.D. Jain that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5, in the instant suit, are brothers and dayalal kept himself away from the witness-box, pushing his brother Dudharam, plaintiff No. 2 into the witness-box, who deposed as P.W. 1. In his evidence, counsel submit there is a clear admission of the fact that Dayalal was present in Court on the date when he was giving evidence. Whatever that may be, the fact of the matter is that Ex. D/10 could come on record as secondary evidence. The admitted fact, of course, is that no certified copy has been filed and it is not known why that was not filed. It is unfortunate that Ex. D/10 has not been formally proved though that could have been proved by proving the signature on that document of plaintiff Dayalal's lawyer Madho Prasad which, it is submitted, finds place on the document. That part, the document could also have been proved by proving the signature of the Presiding Officer of the Court under which there is seal of the Court. That has also not been done. In any case, a notice to admit, as contemplated under Order 12, CPC could have been given to admit the content of the plaint to plaintiff No.1, Dayalal, but that could also not be done in this case. The impugned judgment is seriously tainted obviously for the reason that when the question of admissibility was decided in the appeal for the first time, it was the duty of the Court to give appropriate and reasonable opportunity to the parties against whom the question was decided. Without doing so; in an arbitrary fashion, the appeal has been allowed upsetting the judgment and decree of the trial Court and basis of that is exclusion from consideration Ex. Without doing so; in an arbitrary fashion, the appeal has been allowed upsetting the judgment and decree of the trial Court and basis of that is exclusion from consideration Ex. D/10 containing the material admission of plaintiff Dayalal. For this reason obviously, the impugned judgment and decree must be unsustainable in law and I have no hesitation to pronounce that. There is another aspect of the matter about which I must also speak a few words. On pleadings, issue No.9 concerning limitation was struck, but no Court took care to decide the issue although that was indeed live and material issue and jurisdictional issue. The question was of possession and recovery of possession. If the plaintiffs seeking the relief had allowed limitation to run against them and had lost their right to recover possession, they had no case and they were to be non- suited. My attention is drawn by Shri Jain to the evidence of P.W. 1, plaintiff No.2, to submit that there was ample, adequate and clinching material to decide the issue because the fact of possession of the suit land for more than 22 years by Ram Bai is deposed to by the witness. However, I do not propose to pronounce o that my view because that question has not been considered by any Court and on that, finding has to be appropriately given by the lower appellate Court when the appeal is re-heard. For all the aforesaid reasons, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside. The appeal shall be reheard and decided afresh. In the course of rehearing, opportunity shall be granted to both sides to adduce evidence to meet the question of admissibility of Ex. D/10. Evidently, secondary evidence of the document, if adduced, shall be received and when that is done, rebuttal evidence shall be allowed to be adduced. However, now the issue of limitation shall also be decided as that has remained undecided by both Courts. AIR 1991 MP 18 relied on.