SATYANARAIN Vs. LAKSHMI NARAIN PURWAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter was taken up for hearing on the point of admission, the caveator desired a right of audition. The Appellant objected stating that the caveator had a right of being heard only on an application, e.g. on the application for interim order and not on the point of admission. The caveator relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in . wherein It was held that although Order XLI, Rule 11 did not grant a right of hearing at the admission stage to the caveator, but the court had every authority to hear him for the ends of Justice as justice was likely to be done if the two sides were heard. Accordingly the caveator was allowed, at this stage, only to urge that the substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal were not at all substantial.

(2.) The parties were heard not only on the above question but also on the question as to what was a substantial question of law in terms of Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure and if any such substantial question of law was there for the purpose of admitting the appeal.

(3.) The suit in question was filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent Lakshmi Narain Purwar against the Appellant-Defendant and others praying for injunction. The suit property was a house and four shop rooms specifically described by certain letters in the map annexure to the plaint. The Plaintiff initially prayed for a direction upon the Defendants that they may not disturb the possession of the Plaintiff on the suit property and may not make any construction thereon. Subsequently, the plaint was amended to insert a prayer for possession in respect of a portion of the suit property again specifically described by certain different letters. There was a prayer for damages also.