Permitting amendments to pleadings and additional evidence is necessary for fair adjudication, and the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit was set aside to allow for a complete reconsideration.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

Both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.6678/2014 by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under:-

The appellant in both the appeals was the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed by him against the 1^st respondent – defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to suit schedule immovable property. The 1^st respondent filed his written statement not only contesting the suit but also put forth the counter claim for permanent injunction and other reliefs against the plaintiff in relation to the written statement schedule property. The said counter claim was contested by the appellant – plaintiff and after completion of pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues:-

“1) Does the plaintiff prove that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of suit?

2) Does the plaintiff prove that there is interference by the defendant to her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property?

3) Does the plaintiff prove that, she is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant?

4) What order or decree?

Additional Issues framed on 7.12.2018

1) Whether the defendant proves that he is in possession of written statement schedule property as on the date of suit ?

2) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the written statement schedule property ?

3) Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?”

3. Plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and marked documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P22 while the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and Exs.D1 to D24 were marked by him. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and decreeing the counter claim of the defendant.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dismissing her suit, the plaintiff has preferred RFA No.730/2021. So also, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the counter claim of the defendant, plaintiff has preferred RFA No.731/2021.

5. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, respondents 2 and 3 in both the appeals sought impleadment on the ground that they had purchased the property from 1^st respondent – defendant and this Court has permitted the respondents 2 and 3 to be impleaded in the present appeals as additional respondents.

6. Heard leaned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

7. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in RFA No.730/2021, the appellant – plaintiff has filed among others the following applications;

(i) I.A.1/2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint;

(ii) I.A.4/2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint;

(iii) I.A.2/2023 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint;

(iv) I.A.1/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of additional evidence.

8. The said applications have been opposed by the respondents.

9. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeals:

(i) Whether the applications I.A.1/2022, I.A.4/2022, I.A.2/2023 and I.A.1/2023 filed by the appellant in RFA No.730/2021 deserve to be allowed?

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeals?

Re-Point No.(i):

10. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that as