- (1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 10.1.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kota (South) whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Kota whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 10.1.2012 and has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
(2.) Mr. Dharmendra Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that after the order dated 10.1.2012 was passed, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was filed for bringing certain photographs on record. These photographs were relevant in order to prove that the respondent-defendant has raised construction after grant of the stay order dated 22.7.2005. However, the learned Judge has rejected the said application. Moreover, the learned Judge has not taken into consideration that the alleged construction has been carried out after the stay order was granted by the learned trial court. Therefore, both the courts below have committed an illegality in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC. Hence, both the impugned orders need to be interfered with.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused both the impugned orders.;