PANKAJ BHANDARI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has moved this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 25.04.2016 vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was rejected.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff filed a suit for the disputed shop on the ground of bona fide need for his son Praveen Kumar in the year 1999. The suit was decreed during the pendency of appeal one of the son of the plaintiff Anil Kumar expired on 27.11.2013 and the shop No. 2 got vacant which fact was relevant for decision of the main suit and therefore, application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC should been allowed.
(3.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that initially the application was rejected and the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the High Court bearing Writ Petition No. 4422/2015 which was allowed on 19.02.2016 and the matter was remanded back to the first appellate court to hear and decide the application filed by the petitioner afresh, the appellate court has now rejected the application by the impugned order dated 25.04.2016.;