**1** S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.59 of 2010. Babu Lal son of late Shri Bhonri Lal VERSUS Govindsahai Sharma son of late Shri Ramgopal Sharma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.59 of 2010. Babu Lal son of late Shri Bhonri Lal ..... Defendant-appellant VERSUS Govindsahai Sharma son of late Shri Ramgopal Sharma ..... Plaintiff-respondents Date of Judgment :::: 12th January, 2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Z.A. Naqvi, Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant Mr. Usman Khan, Counsel for the Plaintiff-respondent *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the order dated 07.10.2009 of remand passed by the learned Appellate Court after allowing the application submitted by the plaintiff-landlord for amendment of the pleadings during the pendency of the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit dated 12.03.2003. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel **2** S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.59 of 2010. Babu Lal son of late Shri Bhonri Lal VERSUS Govindsahai Sharma son of late Shri Ramgopal Sharma for the parties agreed that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case to the learned trial Court and the plaintiff may be permitted to argue the appeal on the basis of the averments made in the application for amendment of the plaint, which has been allowed and the plaint amended accordingly with relation to the averments regarding personal- bonafide-necessity. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff would be satisfied if the aforesaid averments are taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court while deciding the appeal and no further evidence would be required to be led by the plaintiff on this account. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the defendant, who is respondent before the learned Appellate Court may be permitted to file an amended written- statement to the amended plaint filed by the plaintiff-appellant. For this purpose, the learned Appellate Court would afford an opportunity to the defendant-respondent before it for filing the amended written-statement to rebut the pleadings made in the amended plaint. It is further agreed by the learned counsel that the application submitted by the defendant under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C., may also be taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court while deciding the appeal and the material **3** S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.59 of 2010. Babu Lal son of late Shri Bhonri Lal VERSUS Govindsahai Sharma son of late Shri Ramgopal Sharma placed by the defendant would also be taken into consideration by way of the aforesaid application by the learned Appellate Court while deciding the appeal. In the light of the aforesaid application, which has been submitted and the agreement between the parties to the effect as has been recorded here-in-above, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.10.2009 passed by the learned appellate Court remanding the case to the learned trial Court is set aside and the learned Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law in the light of the aforesaid directions, the application, which has been submitted before this Court for deciding the appeal as aforesaid be registered and kept on record and the same also stands disposed of. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/ **4** S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.59 of 2010. Babu Lal son of late Shri Bhonri Lal VERSUS Govindsahai Sharma son of late Shri Ramgopal Sharma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Stay Application No.51/2010 IN S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.59 of 2010. Babu Lal son of late Shri Bhonri Lal ..... Defendant-appellant VERSUS Govindsahai Sharma son of late Shri Ramgopal Sharma ..... Plaintiff-respondents Date of Judgment :::: 12th January, 2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Z.A. Naqvi, Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant Mr. Usman Khan, Counsel for the Plaintiff-respondent *** By the Court : Consequent upon disposal of the main appeal, the stay application, filed therewith does not survive and the same is also disposed of (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/