DHURU MANJHI Vs. KANHAIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by defendants No.1 and 3 is as under:-

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction stating inter-alia that he has purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 11.2.97 and came into possession of the suit land. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court holding that original sale deed dated 11.2.97 has not been produced and proved by the plaintiff in accordance with law. The plaintiff preferred first appeal before the First Appellate Court under Section 96 of the CPC and also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. The First Appellate Court by the impugned order itself firstly allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and taken the sale deed dated 11.2.97 on record and proceeded further to consider the appeal on merits and taking into account the original sale deed dated 11.2.97 first appeal has been allowed. Against which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the appellants/defendants No.1 and 3, in which substantial question of law has been framed by this Court, which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Mr.A.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No.1 and 3, would submit that the First Appellate Court firstly granted the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and after taking into account the sale deed dated 11.2.97 on record, considered that sale deed and granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff without giving an opportunity to rebut it on the principle of natural justice, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.