A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals, which involve a short point.
So far as IA No.5/2011 filed by the appellants is companycerned, numberorder was passed.
By order dated 11.07.2016, the High Court allowed the application filed by the respondents IA No.
So the short question, which arises for companysideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeals.
By these two applications, parties prayed permission from the Appellate Court to file additional evidence documents in support of their case.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are companystrained to allow these appeals and while setting aside the impugned order, remand the case to the High Court for hearing the appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law.
428/2011 and also admitted the documents in evidence and directed that the impact of the additional evidence admitted in evidence will be examined while hearing the main appeal.
By impugned order, both the appeals were dismissed by affirming the judgment decree of the Trial Court, which has given rise to filing of the two appeals in this Court after obtaining the special leave to appeal.
1402 of 1992 and O.S. No.432 of 1993.
The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the original defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs of the two suits being S. No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
The Trial Court by judgment decree dated 21.01.2002 decreed the title suit and passed a decree for possession but dismissed the suit for grant of perpetual injunction.
These appeals are filed against a companymon Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date 2019.04.16 judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 passed by 165139 IST Reason the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in CCCA No.40 of 2002 and TRCCA No.168 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellants herein.
This led to filing of two first appeals in the High Court of A.P. During pendency of the appeals, the appellants defendants filed an application IA No.5/2011 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code and the respondents plaintiffs also filed an application IA No.428/2011 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code.
One suit was for declaration of title and delivery of possession of a major portion of the suit house and other was for grant of perpetual injunction in relation to the suit house.
