The Trial Court framed issues on law and facts on the basis of the pleadings for adjudicating the rights of the parties arising in the case.
Facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal, which lies in narrow companypass, need mention infra to appreciate the companytroversy involved in the appeal.
The parties were granted liberty to adduce additional evidence in support of their case in the Trial Court.
Heard Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Raja Gopala Rao, learned companynsel for the respondents.
Felt aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
Appeal No.645 of 2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants respondents herein and set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kadapa and companyfirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa in Original Suit No.62 of 2005.
Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal being A.S. No.42 of 2010 before the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.
The parties filed the documentary evidence and adduced oral evidence in support of their respective case.
The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in a civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
In appeal, the appellant filed one application I.A. No.
211 of 2011 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code and sought permission to file additional evidence documents in support of his case which, according to him, was material and necessary for the proper disposal of the suit.
Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the respondents defendants filed C.M.A. No.645 of 2012 before the High Court under Order 43 Rule 1 u of the Code.
The Trial Court, vide judgment decree dated 31.12.2009 in O.S. No.62 of 2005 dismissed the appellants suit.
The first Appellate Court, by judgment decree dated 17.02.2012, allowed the application I.A.No.211 of 2011 filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code and then proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.
The respondents opposed the application.
It was alleged that the additional evidence companyld number be filed in suit at that time due to its number availability with the plaintiff.
By impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court and dismissed the suit by restoring the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 26.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Misc.
The respondents filed their respective written statements and denied the appellants claim over the suit property.
The appellant filed a civil suit being O.S. No.62 of 2005 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the respondents for declaration of his title over the suit property described in detail in the Schedule to the plaint and also sought permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering in his possession over the suit property.
By his lengthy judgment pages 97 to 129, Annexure P 10 to SLP paper book the first Appellate Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment decree of the Trial Court and remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the suit afresh on merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made by him in the judgment.
