CSA- 268/2007 -Babunath & Ors. Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors Judgment dt.1.8.08 1/3 S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.268/2007 Babunath & Ors. Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors. Date of order : 01st August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. B.N. Kalla for the appellant. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This second appeal arises out of the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 11.4.2007 whereby the learned first Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial court decreeing the suit of the permanent injunction against the defendant directing the defendants to remove their encroachment on the suit premises, a plot of 20.5' x 19.6' land situated in village Devgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B.N. Kalla has submitted that the learned trial court wrongly rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed before the first Appellate Court on 23.3.2007 with which it had filed a certified copy of order dated 18.9.1998 of the learned trial court rejecting the civil suit No.76/1976 filed by the same plaintiff against the Municipal Board, Devgarh in respect of the same suit land which was rejected by the learned trial court. He, therefore, submits that the plaintiff had no right over the said land and, therefore, could not seek injunction against the defendant in the present suit. He relies upon the decision of the Honb'le Supreme Court in North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs. - 2008 AIR SCW 3159 in CSA- 268/2007 -Babunath & Ors. Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors Judgment dt.1.8.08 2/3 which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 4 of the judgment held that the additional evidence adduced at appellate stage can also be considered if it is found necessary for pronouncement of the judgment or giving of the judgment in more satisfactory manner. 4. I have heard learned counsel. 5. In the opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in the present case for consideration by this Court. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1976 i.e. Suit No.76/1976 though the said suit was decreed on 15.4.1998 and the earlier suit filed against the Municipal Board i.e. Suit No.76/1976 was dismissed on 18.9.1998 but since the application in question under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed by the plaintiff after almost 9 years of the said judgment on 23.3.2007 and the learned first appellate court found that not only the application was belated but also the said judgment was not likely to have any effect on the present suit of the injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants therefore it rightly rejected the said application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. 6. In the opinion of this Court also, such belated application with a copy of judgment in which the suit against the Municipal Board was rejected had no relevance. If the said injunction suit has been rejected, the Municipal Board could seek possession of the land from the plaintiff, however, grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff in the subsequent suit against the present defendant- appellants by concurrent finding of two courts below do not give any CSA- 268/2007 -Babunath & Ors. Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors Judgment dt.1.8.08 3/3 rise to any substantial question of law which requires determination by this Court. 7. The second appeal is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.23 babulal/-