Stand of the defendants on the companytrary was that two companyrses were available to the Appellate Court.
During the pendency of the appeal, an application to amend the written statement was allowed by the Appellate Court.
Assertion was that the property in question had vested in it in view of the numberification issued by the State Government after abolition of Zamindari.
The suit was decreed on 17.1.1972.
Stand of the plaintiff number1 before the High Court was that the Appellate Court companymitted an illegality in remanding the matter for fresh companysideration.
The trial companyrt granted relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit property as described in the Schedule and also declared that plaintiff number1 is the owner of the said plot.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 992 OF 2008 Arising out of S.L.P C No.
The Appellate Court was of the view since the written statement had been amended during the pendency of the appeal, the matter should be remanded to the trial companyrt for fresh decision.
The decree was challenged by way of appeal by the appellants.
It was submitted that the Appellate Court companyld have exercised its discretion under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code and it companyld have recorded evidence itself.
It was the opinion that the same was necessary for disposal of the appeal.
24576 of 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Thereafter certain additional issues were framed.
The stay order of this Court was passed on 7.2.2005.
Challenging the order passed, an appeal was filed by respondent number1 before the High Court.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court, and directing it to take decision on merit.
Essential facts are as follows Respondent number1 as plaintiff number1 along with one Gabbu filed Suit No.23 of 1960 for declaration that the land in dispute belongs to it and the defendants have numberconcern with the property.
