- (1.) This appeal is against the order of the Appellate Court dated 09.11.2011 by which judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to hear and dispose of the pending application filed under Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") and thereafter decide the case afresh on merits.
(2.) Briefly stated, the plaintiff Shanti Devi filed the suit for declaration to the effect that she is exclusive owner in possession of the property in dispute bearing property no.BI 513 (old) and B II 534 (new), situated in Chowk Sabzi Mandi, Chhawni Mohalla, Ludhiana, property no.21-A and its relevant "Phar", situated in New Sabzi Mandi, G.T. Road, Ludhiana and property no.B I.1276 (old) and B.II-255 (new), situated in Kucha Khuda Bux, Chhawni Mohalla, Ludhiana on the basis of the Will dated 10.06.1970, executed by Lakhmi Chand S/o Nar Singh Dass in her favour and for permanent injunction to restrain defendants no.8 and 9 from using and interfering in any portion of the aforesaid property/shop no.21-A and its relevant "Phar" or in the alternative for separate possession of the properties by partition of 1/8 th share.
(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit on 15.09.1999. The plaintiff filed the appeal in which, inter alia, it was alleged that the trial Court has failed to decide the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17A of the CPC. The Appellate Court, while reversing the order of the trial Court, observed that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17A of the CPC for additional evidence is on the judicial file at pages marked as 323 to 325. The application was filed by the plaintiff to prove on record the age of scribe Parkash Chhabra by summoning the record of his appointment in the office of Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana and the record relating to license issued by the Market Committee/Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana in favour of Gulshan Kumar who was doing his business under the superintendence and control of the plaintiff. The application was found supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff, attested by the Oath Commissioner on 30.08.1999. It was also found that it does not bear the stamp of the Court regarding its filing and also there was no zimni order recorded on 30.08.1999 for filing of the application in the Court. It was observed by the Appellate Court that since the application is now a part of the judicial file, the trial Court is required first to decide the application and then the main case could be decided.;