JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel 1 for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant shown the copy of the challan containing the endorsement of deposit of the cost of Rs. 1,500/- on 1st May, 2000. The controversy in this second appeal is only with respect to whether s the plaintiff was given opportunity to lead evidence adequately or not. 3. It will be relevant to mention few facts, which are necessary for deciding this second appeal itself. It appears that the trial court closed the evidence of the plaintiff by order dated 3.11.1987 and in revision petition no. 120/88 against the said order the High Court by order dated 1.12.1988 10 granted permission to lead evidence to the plaintiff by imposing cost of Rs. 500/-. However, that amount was not deposited within time granted by the High Court. On application filed by the appellant- plaintiffs in the trial court for extension of time, the trial court rejected the prayer. The plaintiff submitted an application before the High Court, which was registered as S.B. Misc. Application No. 112/95 wherein this court after hearing both the parties, extended time for depositing of the amount awarded by this court in plaintiffs' earlier revision petition no. 120/88 on payment of further cost of Rs. 1000/- by order dated 18th April, 2000. The plaintiff-appellants deposited Rs. 1500/- in the trial court on 1st May, 2000, i.e., within time granted by the order of this court dated 18th April. 2000. However, before that, the suit itself was decided by the trial court by judgment dated 21st Sept., 1993. The appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 7th Nov., 1997. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the revision petition, which was earlier filed by the appellant-plaintiffs was filed as back as in the year 1988, which was registered S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 120/88, However, this court in its detail order dated 18th April, 2000 still permitted opportunity to lead evidence to the plaintiff after hearing the respondent and the order dated 18th April, 2000 was complied with by the plaintiff-appellant. It is stated by learned counsel for the parties that Special Leave Petition against the order dated 18th April, 2000 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is stated by learned counsel for the parties that Special Leave Petition against the order dated 18th April, 2000 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above, the order dated 18th April, 2000 became final and the right to lead evidence in the trial court of the plaintiff has attained the finality. 4. The court below has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff only on the ground that there is no evidence in support of the case of the plaintiff. The very foundation of the passing of the judgment by the trial court dated 21 Sept., 1993 stands vitiated after the order of this court dated 18th April, 2000, which was passed by this court after the decision of not only of the trial court but even after the decision of the First Appellate Court. The order was passed after hearing the respondent-appellant, therefore, the High Court was in knowledge of the fact that the suit itself has already been decided, still the revision petition of the appellant was allowed and the High Court passed the order permitting chance to the plaintiff-appellant to lead evidence. Therefore, the effect is required to be given to the order dated 18th April, 2000 and cannot be denied by any stretch of imagination. 5. In view of the above, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is that whether in a case where revision petition was pending against the closure of evidence and this court passes an order permitting the plaintiff to lead evidence but before that the suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of evidence of the plaintiff and appeal against that is also dismissed by the First Appellate Court, can the plaintiff-appellant seeks reversal of the decrees of the courts passed by the High Court in the revision petition challenging the order passed during trial of the suit and succeeds in proving his case for grant of further time for evidence? 6. Learned counsel for the respondent is also not in position to defend this appeal because of the reason that the respondent is not in position to assail the order dated 18th April, 2000 by which this court allowed the prayer of the plaintiff-appellant and set aside the order of the trial court closing the evidence of the plaintiff-appellant and which has become final and conclusive between the parties. 7. 7. In view of the above reasons, the answer is that when foundation of the decree goes because of setting aside of the order of the trial court by the appellate court or by the revisional court then inevitable consequence is reversal of the decree only. 8. In view of the above reasons, this second appeal is allowed and the Judgments and decrees of the trial court dated 21st Sept., 1993 and appellate court dated 7th Nov., 1997 are set aside. Since the matter is old one, therefore, both the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 22nd Sept, 2003. The trial court will proceed to record the evidence of the plaintiff and from that stage proceed to decide the suit of the plaintiff in accordance with law. The trial court is further directed to decide the suit expeditiously as early as possible.Second Appeal Allowed - Decree Set Aside, Trial Court to Record Evidence of Parties. *******