- (1.) Plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed a suit for possession and the said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.1998. Appeal filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 1.8.2000. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.2 and 3.
(2.) During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that before the first Appellate Court, appellant-defendant Ramesh Kumar had moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short). By way of additional evidence, appellant-defendant Ramesh Kumar wanted to prove on record jamabandi for the year 1988-89.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the case was not liable to be remanded back to the first Appellate Court merely because the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC had not been decided. The evidence now sought to be led by way of additional evidence was not relevant for the just decision of the case.;