R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has accepted the appeal filed by the respondents -defendants and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.05.2005 and has remanded the case back to the learned trial court. The learned Judge has also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/ - upon the defendants and has directed the trial court to give a chance to both the defendants -respondents to produce their evidence before it.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants -respondents stating therein that there is a house situated behind Heera Moti Cinema, Kotputli in which the appellant and Smt. Santosh have half shares and the partition has not taken place between them. It was further stated that since Babu Lal Gupta has no relation with the said property, therefore the defendants -respondents have no right to recover the dues of Babu Lal Gupta by auctioning the property of the appellant. The defendants -respondents filed written statements to the suit and denied the averments. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed eight issues and recorded the evidence. On behalf of the appellant -plaintiff, Saroj Devi (PW -1), Satya Narayan (PW -2) and Madan Lal (PW -3) were examined and various documents were produced. On behalf of the defendants -respondents, no evidence was produced. On 13.04.2005, an application was moved on behalf of the O.I.C. with the request that the written statements may be treated as the evidence of the defendants. On which the learned trial court informed the O.I.C. that on the basis of the written statements cross -examination cannot be made, therefore, it cannot be read in evidence. Even then the O.I.C. was adamant. Therefore, the learned trial court closed the right of the defendants to produce their evidence. Vide judgment and decree dated 04.05.2005, the learned trial court restrained the respondents by way of permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.05.2005, the defendants -respondents filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli. Vide judgment dated 02.04.2009, the learned appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.05.2005 and remanded the case back to the learned trial court as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that it was clearly given out by the O.I.C. that the defendants do not wish to submit any evidence and the written statements submitted by them should be treated as their evidence. Once such a concession was given by the O.I.C., the learned trial court was certainly justified in passing the judgment and decree in favour of the appellant. Therefore, he has contended that the judgment dated 02.04.2009, setting aside the order dated 04.05.2005, is unsustainable.
(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.;