Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Defendants were proceeded ex-parte. The trial Court after considering the ex-parte evidence came to the conclusion that Section 47 bars the institution of such a suit. Otherwise also the trial Court came to the conclusion that the matter of compromise can also be agitated before the appellate authority and so held that the suit of the, plaintiff cannot be decreed as prayed for. The Court accordingly ordered that the plaintiff shall not be dispossessed except in due course of law.

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the limited relief granted by the trial Court plaintiff filed an appeal. This time defendants put in appearance with a view to place relevant documents i.e the order of the appellate authority as well as the order passed in revision petition by this Court filed an application under order 41 Rule 27 CPC to adduce in evidence these documents by way of additional evidence. This prayer was declined by the Additional District judge vide order dated 13.1.1988. The Additional District judge found substance in the plea of the plaintiff that a fresh tenancy has been created which renders the earlier order of eviction as redundant. Court accordingly passed a restrain order preventing the defendants from dispossessing plaintiff in execution of ejectment order dated 8.10.1985.