SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWALLA Vs. LAXMIPAT DUGGAR @ JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter, referred to as 'CPC', in short) is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia, in Title Appeal No. 11 of 2010. Since the appellant was not a party in the appeal a separate application under Order 22 Rules 10 and 11, read with Order 1 Rule 8(5), read with Section 151 CPC has also been filed by the appellant, which is registered as Misc. Case No. 3095 of 2011. Since the Misc. Case is connected with the main appeal, this judgment will dispose of the appeal as well as the Misc. Case.

(2.) I have heard Sri R.L. Yadav, learned counsel, for the appellant as well as Sri P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 has not turned up, despite being notified by this Court.

(3.) The factual background of the appeal is that the respondent No. 1, namely, Sri Laxmipat Duggar @ Jain, was a tenant under the respondent No. 2 with respect to a residence-cum-shop premises. The respondent No. 2, who is the father of the appellant, filed Title Suit No. 45 of 2004 (subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 23 of 2007) in the Court of Munsiff at Tinsukia in the capacity of landlord for ejectment of respondent No. 1. The suit was decreed in favour of the landlord on 07.05.2010. The said decree was challenged in the Court of learned Civil Judge, by the tenant being Title Appeal No. 11 of 2010. The appeal has been disposed of by way of remanding the suit to the trial Court for fresh disposal after framing an additional issue to the following effect: