JAGAT RAM KENWAT Vs. MANGALDAS MANIKPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appellants'/legal representatives of the plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) The plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction was decreed by the trial Court restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession, against which, the defendant preferred first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the first appellate Court in which he also preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and filed certain documents i.e. demarcation report etc. The first appellate Court heard the said application and also heard the appeal and firstly, the first appellate Court allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and admitted those documents as additional documents and thereafter relying upon those documents allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, against which, this second appeal has been preferred by the original plaintiff in which substantial questions of law has been formulated which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / LR's of the plaintiff, would submit that the first appellate Court has misdirected itself in firstly granting application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and thereafter, taking into account such documents on record, without putting the defendant to prove those documents and thereafter to extend the opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal on the principles of natural justice, considered those documents and admitted as additional documents and set-aside the judgment and decree granted in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the judgment & decree of the first appellate Court is liable to be set-aside.