GOPAL DAGA Vs. PARASMAL OSTWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered in this second appeal states as under:-

(2.) Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant would submit that the First Appellant court has committed legal error of law in not considering the subsequent events brought on record in shape of application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. stating inter alia that the shop adjoining to scheduled suit accommodation has fallen vacant and in possession of the plaintiff and which satisfies the bona fide need of the plaintiff and placed reliance of Supreme Court rendered in case of Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prasad. He would further submit that the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court deserves to be set-aside.

(3.) Replying the contention so made on behalf of the appellant/defendant, Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff while supporting the impugned judgment and decree would submit that both the Courts below have passed the decree not only under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961, but also passed the decree under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961. He would further submit that the defendant has failed to establish subsequent events to say that bona fide need has ceased to exist and it has no impact over the sustainability of the decree so passed by two Courts below and therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed.