PUSHPA ANAND Vs. GOPAL NARAIN SAHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed to quash the order dated 7-11-2008 and order dated 6-4-2009 passed by the appellate court.

(2.) THE appeal filed by the tenant against the order passed on the application under section 21 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was pending in the appellate court. The writ petitioner who is a tenant moved an application during the pendency of the appeal stating therein that the son of the landlord is already employed at another place and in support of his contention he filed an affidavit as an evidence on this point. The objection was filed by the opposite party to which the cross-objection was filed by the petitioner. The opposite party again filed an objection against the cross-objection. The appellate court, in view of the ruling cited by it in its order, passed the order that these objections and cross objection etc. , will be disposed of at the time of disposal of the appeal. This order dated 7-11-2008 was requested to be withdrawn by a subsequent application 32-C, which was rejected by order dated 6-4-2009, hence, this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that his case comes under clause 'aa' of Rule 27 of Order 41 of C. P. C and not under clause 'b' of Rule 27 of Order 41 of C. P. C. lie argued that the objection against the cross-objection is not permissible under law. He also argued that the evidence which was not within the knowledge of the appellant could well be produced under clause 'aa' of Rule 27 of Order 41 of c. P. C. In support of his contention, he relied upon the cases reported in (2007) 5 SCC 660 : (2007 (4) ALJ 297) Ram Kumar barnwal v. Ram Lakhan (dead) and AIR 1985 sc 207; M/s. Variety Emporium v. V. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina.