HASIM ALI KHAN Vs. KALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) read with Sec. 104 C. P. C. , the defendant appellant seeks to quash the order dated 17. 8. 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur, by which the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by the defendant appellant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the case to the learned Trial Court with the direction to afford opportunity to lead evidence on the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity to both the parties and then to decide the suit afresh.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent filed a suit against the defendant appellant for eviction and permanent injunction on the grounds of default in payment of rent, change of user and reasonable and bonafide necessity of the suit premises for his son. Both the parties contested the suit. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for eviction and permanent injunction vide its judgment and decree dated 31. 3. 2004. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal. On 13. 8. 2004, the defendant appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and the appellate court decided the application in the manner indicated above.

(3.) IN my view following two are the only subsequent events which were to be noticed by the appellate court: (a) Whether the plaintiff has an alternate accommodation for carrying on business by his son which the plaintiff has purchased in Jaipur? (b) Whether son of the plaintiff has permanently shifted from Jaipur to Udaipur?