In this case Court observed that, in Section 92 of the IEA (Section 95 of the Adhiniyam) the legislature has prevented oral evidence being adduced for the purpose of varying the contract as between the parties to the contract; but, no such limitations are imposed under Section 91 of the IEA (Section 94 of the Adhiniyam). Sections 91& 92 of the IEA (Sections 94 & 95 of the Adhiniyam) apply only when the document on the face of it contains or appears to contain all the terms of the contract. Section 91 of the of the IEA (Section 94 f the Adhiniyarn) is concerned solely with the mode of proof of document with limitation imposed by Section 92 of the IEA (Section 95 of the Adhinlyam) relates only to the parties to the document. The two sections are, however, different in some material particulars. Section 91 of the IEA (Section 94 of the Adhiniyam) applies to all documents, whether they purport to dispose of rights or not, whereas Section 92 of the IEA (Section 95 of the Adhiniyam) applies to documents which can be described as dispositive. Section 91 of the IEA (Section 94 of the Adhiniyam) applies to documents which are both bilateral and unilateral, unlike Section 92 of the IEA (Section 95 of the Adhiniyam) the application of which is confined to only to bilateral documents.