PHOOLCHAND Vs. CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Matter comes up on the 2nd stay application. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard and the matter is being decided finally at this stage.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') against the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 166/2001, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC has been dismissed.

(3.) Facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed two suits : the first, for permanent and mandatory injunction; and the second for cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction before the Trial Court. The Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005 dismissed both the aforesaid suits. Aggrieved therefrom the plaintiffs filed regular appeal before the District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking the sale deed 30.8.1988 on record. The Appellate Court vide its order dated 29.9.2009 allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, set-aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005 passed by the Trial Court and took the sale deed dated 30.8.1988 on record, subject to the payment of the cost of Rs. 2000/- and remanded both the aforesaid suits to the Trial Court with the direction that in case the amount of cost is deposited by the plaintiffs on the next date, sale deed dated 30.8.1988 be taken on record and after recording the evidence of both the parties in this regard, decide the matter afresh after hearing arguments of both the parties without being influenced by its earlier judgment. During the pendency of the suits, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC for taking the certified copies of certain documents on record. The plaintiffs filed reply to the said application. The Trial Court vide its order dated 20.10.2011 dismissed the defendant's application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC. Hence, this writ petition.