ANITA Vs. ANUP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendant's Second Appeal, wherein, he has questioned the judgment and decree, which has been concurrently rendered by both the Courts below, as a result of which, the Suit being Suit No. 99 of 2010, Mani Lal Vs. Rajendra Kumar was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital and on a challenge being given to the said judgment and decree by the defendants/appellants in a Civil Appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2013, Rajendra Kumar through LRs Vs. Mani Lal through LRs under Section 96 of CPC, the First Appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants, herein, was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 16.05.2019, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 11.10.2013.

(2.) The first and the foremost point, which the counsel for the appellants has argued before this Court was pertaining to an inter se play with regard to the effect of rejection of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. by an order dated 15.04.2019 and that its counter effect on allowing of any application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. at an appellate stage during the adjudication of the appeal, which stood allowed by the same order dated 15.04.2019.

(3.) In order to substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the appellants has made reference to the provisions contained under Section 105 of the C.P.C., which contemplates that if any interlocutory order passed by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, it has got an impact and effect on the principal judgment to be rendered by the Court, the same could be put to challenge at the stage of an appeal. Section 105 of the C.P.C. reads as under :-