PRAKASH Vs. BHAGWAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 19. 11. 1991, by the impugned order, learned Civil Judge, Sojat has allowed the application of the applicant under O. 41 R. 27, CPC for leading additional evidence in respect of subsequent events that has happened during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) PURSHOTTAM, the deceased-plaintiff, has filed a suit for eviction against Bhagwandas from the suit premises, which is a shop, situated at Sojat, inter alia, on the ground that the suit shop is required reasonably and bonafide for the requirement of his son Harish to do business therein. The suit was filed in 1975. The suit was decreed in the first instance. However, this Court in Second Appeal, remanded the case for trial afresh in 1987, Thereafter, the suit was again decreed by the trial Court. While the appeal was pending before the Civil Judge, the defendant moved an application that Harish, for whose need the suit premises were required, has since the filing of suit, obtained a degree in Law and has enrolled himself as an advocate by with the Bar Council of Rajasthan. It was further alleged that after enrolment, said Harish has started practice, first at Bali and then at Sojat. Thus, the son of the landlord having taken another vocation, the need pleaded has come to an end. The fact of obtaining Sanad by Harish had not been denied in reply. However, it is stated that notwithstanding enrolment as an Advocate, Harish is still almost brief less and unemployed and he still needs that suit shop for doing business. The lower appellate Court allowed the application, observing that on the admitted facts, the question do require investigation into certain facts, which have relevant bearing on the existence of need at the time of passing of decree by the lower appellate court and on the question of comparative hardship. He, therefore, directed the trial court under O. 41 R. 28, C. P. C. to record evidence on the plea raised in the application and reply thereto and submit the same to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. It is against this order that the plaintiff has preferred this revision.

(3.) AS a result, this revision must fail and is accordingly dismissed summarily. However, looking to the age of the case, it is imperative that the trial court be directed to comply with the order of appellate court in a fixed time-frame, with least delay. I, therefore, direct the trial court to record evidence of both the parties within 3 months and return the same to the appellate court. The recording of evidence should take place from day to day, without any adjournment and the parties may be directed to produce their witnesses, without issue of summons. The lower appellate court shall dlecide the appeal within one month of the receipt of evidence. .