GURDEV SINGH Vs. MEHNGA RAM
LAWS(SC)-1997-7-82
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
July 11,1997
GURDEV SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
MEHNGA RAM
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
ANDISAMY CHETTIAR VS. SUBBURAJ CHETTIAR [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-16] [REFERRED TO]SHER SINGH VS. KASHMIRI LAL CHAMAN LAL SARAF [LAWS(P&H)-1998-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH VS. LAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1998-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
BIKKAR SINGH ETC VS. NIRMAL KAUR ETC [LAWS(P&H)-1998-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
CAPT. PRAVEEN DAVAR (RETD.) AND ANR. VS. HARVANSH KUMARI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-372] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJIT KAUR VS. SURINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2002-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR SAXENA VS. A D J AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-137] [REFERRED]
A.AANDISAMY CHETTIAR VS. A.SUBBURAJ CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-273] [REFERRED]
GH HASSAN TANTRY VS. MANZOOR AHMAD WANI [LAWS(J&K)-2006-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR SINGH VS. NARESH CHANDRAS [LAWS(SC)-2000-11-63] [REFERRED]
ARJUN MAL VS. MOHINI DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
BIBI AISHA BEGAM WIFE OF SYED ZAFFAR HASNAIN @ LAL BABU AND ORS VS. BIBI SHAHNAZ BEGAM AND ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2015-3-244] [REFERRED TO]
PAVALAYEE VS. PERIANNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-284] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADEESAN VS. T KRIUPAKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-1-103] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJI DEVI VS. CHAMAN LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2000-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
TARSEEM PAL VS. RATTAN WAZIR [LAWS(J&K)-2012-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
NISHAR MOHAMMED VS. ABDUL RASHID [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
SUDESH KUMARI ALIAS MRS SARITA VIJ VS. VIJAY MODI [LAWS(P&H)-1998-8-41] [REFERRED]
NUTAN SINGH VS. ESTATE OF SHANKAR SHARAN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2022-12-70] [REFERRED TO]
SAILO RAM VS. KULDIP CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2002-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
BABLO YESHWANT SAWANT VS. VISHNU RAMA NAIK [LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA VS. RISHI PAL [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-355] [REFERRED TO]
MANEMMA T VS. BOKKI SHIVANNA [LAWS(APH)-2002-12-102] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAL VS. KUMARI PRIYANKA [LAWS(HPH)-2022-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. BISHAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1998-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
AISHA BEGAM AND ORS. VS. SHAHNAZ BEGAM AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-3-182] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MAHANT SHRI VISHNU PRASAD [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
MANORMA DEVI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH VS. NACHATTAR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2001-4-106] [REFERRED TO]
P.S.E.B. VS. HARI KEWAL PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1998-3-189] [REFERRED TO]
BHULIA DEVI VS. SHEELA DEVI [LAWS(P&H)-1998-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. N.M.DASSI & COMPANY VS. KALIDAS BASAK [LAWS(CAL)-2013-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAKAR NENE VS. SHREE NAGPUR GEETA MANDIR TRUST, NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-2004-10-197] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The grievance of the appellants before us is that in an appeal filed by them before the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, in an application under Order XLI, Rule 27(b), Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the learned Additional District Judge at the final hearing of the appeal wrongly felt that additional evidence was required to produce as requested by the appellants by way of examination of a handwriting expert. The High Court in the impugned order exercising jurisdiction under Sectioin 115, C.P.C. took the view that the order of the Appellate Court could not be sustained. In our view the approach of the High Court in revision at that interim stage when the appeal was pending for final hearing before the learned Additional District Judge was not justified and the High Court should not have interfered with the order which was within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The reason is obvious. The Appellate Court hearing the matter finally could exercise jurisdiction one way or the other under Order XLI, Rule 27 specially clause (b). If the order was wrong on merits, it would always be open for the respondent to challenge the same in accordance with law if an occasion arises to carry the matter in Second Appeal, after an appellate decree is passed. But at this interim stage, the High Court should not have felt itself convinced that the order was without jurisdiction. Only on this short question, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved and on the legality of the contentions advanced by both the learned Counsel for the parties regarding additional evidence, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court. In the result, the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur shall now decide the appeal on its own merits. We make it clear that the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dated 12-12-1995 shall now be complied with, subject to the liberty reserved to the respondent as aforesaid.
(2.)We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The grievance of the appellants before us is that in an appeal filed by them before the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, in an application under Order XLI, Rule 27(b), Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the learned Additional District Judge at the final hearing of the appeal wrongly felt that additional evidence was required to produce as requested by the appellants by way of examination of a handwriting expert. The High Court in the impugned order exercising jurisdiction under Sectioin 115, C.P.C. took the view that the order of the Appellate Court could not be sustained. In our view the approach of the High Court in revision at that interim stage when the appeal was pending for final hearing before the learned Additional District Judge was not justified and the High Court should not have interfered with the order which was within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The reason is obvious. The Appellate Court hearing the matter finally could exercise jurisdiction one way or the other under Order XLI, Rule 27 specially clause (b). If the order was wrong on merits, it would always be open for the respondent to challenge the same in accordance with law if an occasion arises to carry the matter in Second Appeal, after an appellate decree is passed. But at this interim stage, the High Court should not have felt itself convinced that the order was without jurisdiction. Only on this short question, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved and on the legality of the contentions advanced by both the learned Counsel for the parties regarding additional evidence, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court. In the result, the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur shall now decide the appeal on its own merits. We make it clear that the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dated 12-12-1995 shall now be complied with, subject to the liberty reserved to the respondent as aforesaid.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.