ANARO DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of Additional District Judge dated 07.10.2005, allowing the application of the defendant-respondent under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") to bring the additional evidence on the record.

(2.) The essential facts are; the petitioner-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 208 of 1998 in the court of Additional Civil Judge for permanent injunction restraining the officials and employees of Forest Department from interfering in her fishing right. She also claimed a sum of Rs. 45100/- as an alternative relief. In brief her case was that defendant-Irrigation Department had granted her lease on 29.04.1997 for a year but other defendants, employee of forest department were causing interference in carrying out her business. The plaintiff/ petitioner's suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 30.11.2002 only in respect of payment of a sum of Rs. 35100/- with 5% interest from 29.04.1997 till actual payment made. But the Trial Court refused to issue permanent injunction. The State-defendant feeling aggrieved by the said decree, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2003. In the appeal, the State-defendant moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to bring some map and government order on the record after a gap of two years time when the appeal was pending the said application dated 14.09.2005 was filed by the respondent.

(3.) Learned District Judge by the impugned order dated 07.10.2005, in the interest of justice, allowed the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, of the State-defendant.