KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. RAVINDER NARAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 10401/2012 (exemption).

(2.) BY way of this second appeal under section 100 CPC, challenge has been made to the impugned judgment/decree dated 28.02.2012 by which learned Senior Civil Judge cum RC(Central) has allowed the application of respondent No. 1/plaintiff for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC and has set aside the judgment/decree dated 9th August, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge and has remanded back the matter to the learned trial court for fresh trial. Respondent No. 1 as Karta of HUF i.e., plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge had filed civil suit No. 181/97 wherein prayer was made for a decree of injunction for restraining the defendant i.e., appellant herein, from making addition, alteration in the suit premises or misusing or creating interest of any third person to the premises bearing No. 1881, Haveli Jugal Kishore, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. In the aforesaid suit, respondent No. 1/plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property. It was stated that appellant/defendant was a tenant under respondent No. 1/plaintiff with respect to entire ground floor except one separate room at a monthly rate of Rs. 135/ - and the property was let out for commercial purposes. It was stated that appellant/defendant had started misusing the suit property for the purposes other than for which it was let out to him and was also trying to raise illegal and unauthorized construction and wanted to part with possession of the same. It was alleged that if the appellant/defendant was not restrained, it would cause irreparable loss to respondent No. 1/plaintiff.

(3.) AFTER completion of pleadings, issues were framed in the said suit. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff had led the evidence of one Sh. J.K. Bansal who appeared in the witness box as PW1. The appellant/defendant did not lead any evidence. Ultimately the suit of respondent No. 1/plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment/decree dated 09.08.2002.