ESRAR AHMED Vs. RUKMANI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous appeal filed under Order 43 rule 1 of CPC is directed against the order passed by the learned XI Additional District Judge in regular Civil Appeal No.28/2015 dtd. 31/3/2016 which was in its turn directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Civil Judge, Class-II, Inodre in regular Civil Suit No.73-A/2014 dtd. 9/12/2014.

(2.) According to the relevant facts, the respondent here before this Court, is a tenant in the suit property, which was purchased by the present appellant from Satguru Prasad Shrivastava, Prakash Narayan Shrivastava and Shantidevi Shrivastava, through a power of attorney Mohd. Sayeed. The present appellant filed a suit for eviction against the respondent on the ground inter alia of bona fide requirement of the plaintiff and his family members. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge and eviction decree was passed. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the first appeal was filed before the learned XI Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge, allowed one application under Order 41 rule 27 of CPC and also application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC and after allowing these two applications, the learned appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge and remanded the matter back for incorporating the amendment, framing of fresh issues, recording of fresh evidence and passing the judgment afresh. Aggrieved by this order of remand, this miscellaneous appeal is filed.

(3.) While allowing the application under Order 41 rule 27 of CPC, the learned appellate Court allowed certain documents, which showed that the suit property was situated in an area which was declared to be Gandi Basti under the M. P. Gandi Basti Kshetra (Sudhar Tatha Nirmulan) Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' ) and, therefore, the additional documents were taken on record. The learned appellate Court also allowed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC, by which it was sought to be added in the written statement that under the provisions of Sec. 20 and 21 of the aforesaid Act, the present suit was not maintainable.