TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result in the negation of justice. The respondent filed the suit from which this appeal arises against the appellant for recovery of possession of flat No. 74C, Pocket-E, Dilshad Garden, Delhi claiming the appellant to be in trespass/unauthorized possession thereof and for recovery of mesne profits at the rate of ₹ 6,000/- per month. 2. The appellant set up the defence of being tenant under the respondent in the said flat at a rent of ₹ 2,200/- per month. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the defendants No. 1 and 2 are trespassers in suit premises? OPP 2. Whether the defendant No. 1 is a tenant under the plaintiff in the suit premises? OPD-1 3. Whether the jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession from which this appeal arises, injunction was granted restraining the respondent from forcibly and without due process of law dispossessing the appellant from the premises. 6. After the aforesaid judgment, the respondent in his suit for possession applied under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC on the basis of the finding of the Appellate Court in the suit for injunction filed by the appellant of the appellant being a trespasser. 7. The appellant in reply to the said application took a plea that he had filed a second appeal against the judgment aforesaid in first appeal. 8. However the appellant till the arguments and decision on the said application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC could not give particulars of the said second appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.C. Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate that merely because issues have been framed, is no reason for the trial to be undertaken, if it is brought to the notice of the Court that the same is not necessary. Similarly, it has been held in Parivar Seva Santhan Vs. Dr. Veena Kalra AIR 2000 Delhi 349, Meera Gupta Vs. Dinesh Chand 94 (2001) DLT 10 State Trading Corporation of India Vs. Nirmal Gupta that framing of the issues is no bar to consider the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. 13. In the present case, no trial on the same issues, findings whereon have attained finality, in any case could have been undertaken. 14. No other argument has been urged. 15. It would thus be clear that there is no need to call for the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
