SRI GOPALA Vs. REVANNA J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O.S. No. 307/2009 in the Court of Civil Judge, Pandavapura to pass decree of permanent injunction and restrain the defendant from interfering into his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Written statement was filed and the suit contested by the defendant. Issues having been raised and during trial the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and marked Exs. P1 to P36. The defendant got examined himself as DW1 and examined two witnesses as DWs 2 and 3 and marked Ex.D1. By a Judgment dated 20.01.2014, the suit was decreed.

(2.) The defendant preferred R.A. No.3/2014 in the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Pandavapura. I.A.2 was filed for permission to adduce additional evidence in terms of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. I.A.2 was taken up for consideration along with the appeal. By reason of the impugned Judgment dated 14.03.2016, First Appellate Court allowed I.A.No.2 and also the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the case to Trial Court to provide opportunity to both parties to produce additional evidence. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed this appeal.

(3.) Sri R. Pramod, learned advocate for the appellant contended that merely on account of allowing of I.A.No.2 and permission granted to adduce additional evidence, the entire case could not have been remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal after recording further evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has not kept in view the provisions under Order XLI Rule 28 of CPC and hence interference is warranted.