- (1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is decided finally at the admission stage.
(2.) THE present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of CPC is directed against the order dated 04/10/2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Regular First Appeal No.20 of 2012, whereby the Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 30/01/2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.215 of 2000 and has remanded the case to the Trial Court, for deciding the suit afresh, after taking on record the documents produced by the respondents -plaintiffs under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
(3.) IN the instant case, it appears that the original plaintiff Rajendra Prasad, predecessor -in -title of the respondents, had filed the suit for eviction of the appellant -defendant from the suit shop on the ground of bonafide requirement. The said suit was resisted by the appellant -defendant by filing the written statement. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, had dismissed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 30/01/2010 against which the respondents had filed the appeal before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents had sought to produce the certain documents under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC vide applications dated 08/02/2011 and 17/08/2011. The Appellate Court vide the impugned order has allowed the said applications and remanded the case to the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. Placing heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of P. Purushottam Reddy and Anr. vs. Pratap Steels Ltd., 2002 2 SCC 686 and decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Kiran Kumari (Mrs.) and Ors. vs. Hanumant Singh and Ors., 2011 2 DNJ 539, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.K. Mehrishi submitted that the Appellate Court had passed the impugned order without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Appellate Court could not have set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, while permitting additional evidence to be taken on record under Order XLI Rule 27 or Rule 28 of CPC.;