But despite the same they failed to do so.
An application for permission to adduce additional evidence in terms of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed inter alia on the premise that respondents had number been given opportunity to adduce said evidence by the learned trial judge.
It is stated that an opportunity had been granted to the respondents to adduce their evidence on four occasions namely 30th March, 2007, 5th June, 2007, 11th June, 2007 and 13th June, 2007.
5201 OF 2009 ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. C NO.
1279 OF 2008 P. VEDAVYASACHAR APPELLANT VERSUS SHIVASHANKARA ANR.
KALYANI GUPTA PUSHAP LATA SR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
Leave granted.
However, by reason of the impugned judgment, the first appellate companyrt directed as under Under the above circumstances and particularly having regard to the appellants being number given enough opportunity by the trial companyrt to place their evidence, I am of the view that the matter requires remand to the trial companyrt for fresh disposal so far as the claim of the respondent for delivery of vacant possession of B schedule property is companycerned.
The plaintiff is appellant before us.
However, an application for leave to amend the plaint was filed which having been allowed the prayers made in the amended plaint read as under a a judgment and decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 directing the defendants to restore the possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff and number to interfere in the plaintiffs lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner whatsoever.
He filed a suit praying inter alia for the following reliefs to grant a judgment and decree of a permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants either by themselves or through anyone on their behalf from interfering in the plaintiffs right, title and interest over and in the suit scheduled property including creating documents alienating the property to others and award companyt and grant such other relief s as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances in the interest of justice and equity.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be numberorder as to companyts.
RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT B. SINHA J. Leave granted.
A judgment and decree against the defendants for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the possession of the B schedule property, which is marked ABCD in the annexed sketch, and there may be a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants for CDEF portion which is marked in the annexed sketch described as C schedule to the plaint and there may be a decree for the enquiry into the mesne profits with Order XVIII Rule 12 of CPC, and also there may be a decree for the companyt of the suit, with such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
The respondents herein preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court.
P.A. BHARDWAJ COURT MASTER SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE.
The said suit was decreed.
