O.P.Jain, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31st January, 1997 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Jhansi by which the judgment of the trial Court dated 19th August, 1995 has been reversed and the suit has been dismissed. The second appeal was admitted on the following question of law framed by this Court : "Whether the Court had any authority to base its judgment on materials gathered during inspection beyond Order 18, Rule 18, C.P.C.?"
(2.) The factual background is that the plaintiff-appellant I.A. Siddiqui was working as a Stenographer from the year 1979 in Parichha Thermal Power Project, Parichha and he was allotted a residential quarter No. 161/41 (ii) for his residence in the year 1982. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that he was living in the said quarter with his family from the time of allotment and he was also drawing Site Compensation Allowance. The defendants wanted to allot the quarter to some persons of their choice and, therefore, they are threatening the plaintiff that he will be ejected from the quarter. On these allegations the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against Executive Engineer, Electricity Civil Division (i) and Electricity Civil Division (ii). Later on by an amendment of the plaint U.P. Electricity Board, Lucknow was also added as a defendant.
(3.) The defendants contested the suit on the ground that residential quarter is allotted in the project area for the residence of the employee and if an employee does not live in the allotted quarter, he cannot retain its possession. It was further pleaded by the defendants that they received information to the effect that the plaintiff is not residing in the quarter allotted to him. Therefore an Assistant Engineer and a Junior Engineer were sent for enquiry and they found that one Munni Lal is residing in quarter No. 161/41 (ii) allotted to the plaintiff. It was also found that Munni Lal is an outsider who has no right to live in the quarter and that Munni Lal performed the marriage of his daughter from the same quarter. According to defendants this unauthorised occupation was the reason for the cancellation of allotment.;