Shyampati vs Ram Karan Pandey and 4 Others

Court No. - 5

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 41 of 2025

Appellant :- Shyampati Respondent :- Ram Karan Pandey And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vidya Prasad Nagaur Counsel for Respondent :- Durga Prasad,Ram Raj Ojha

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.P.Nagaur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Instant second appeal has been filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Room No. 4 District- Sultanpurj in Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2010 Inre; Ram Karan Pandey and Ors Vs. Shyampati.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that initially the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.2010 had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.

¶8

Being aggrieved, the respondents had filed a Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2010 Inre; Ram Karan Pandey and Ors Vs. Shyampati and the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.02.2025 had allowed the civil appeal setting aside the order dated 12.01.2010 passed in Original Suit No. 162 of 2005.

¶9

Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Second Appeal No. 392 of 2013 Inre; Shyampati Vs. Ram Karan Pandey and Ors before this Court.

¶10

The said second appeal has been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 29.08.2024, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 11 to the instant appeal.

¶11

This Court had remanded back the matter to the first appellate Court and has directed it to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶12

The appellate Court now vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2025 has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2010 passed by the learned trial Court.

¶13

Being aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been filed.

¶14

Various substantial questions of law have been framed in the instant appeal.

¶15

However, the Court is of the view that the following substantial question of law would arise namely (ii) Whether- the First Appellate Court has acted as per terms conditions and observations made in the judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Second Appeal No. 392 of 2023 [Shyampati Vs. Ram Karan Pandey and Ors] acted in violation thereof & (iii) Whether- The first Appellate Court has disturb and interfered with the valuable rights of the parties which stood crystallized by the trial Court's judgment without following the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 C.P.C after framing of new issues for trial of the suit. And without impleading necessary party in the suit in compliance of the observation made in the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court.

¶16

The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.2.2025 has set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2010 that had been passed by the learned trial Court but the same has been done after framing a new issue as emerges from a perusal of paragraph 7 (i) of the judgment.

¶17

Referring to paragraph 3 of the judgment it is argued that the issues as had been framed by the learned trial Court were five in number which do not include the new issue which has been framed by the first appellate Court which is as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the property in dispute prior to Zamindari Abolition.

¶18

Argument is that once this Court vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 had remanded back the matter to the learned appellate Court to decide the same in accordance with law and in case the appellate Court was of the view that a new issue was to be framed which had not been framed by the learned trial Court, consequently, considering the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC , the appellate Court could have itself framed a new issue and would have given an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence but framing of an issue behind the back of the appellant and thereafter not permitting the parties to lead any evidence in this regard would clearly be not countenanced in the eyes of law.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has also invited the attention of the Court towards the typed copies of the order sheets which have been filed cumulatively as annexure 13 to the appeal to contend that none of the orders indicate about the framing of an issue which indicates that the appellant was never confronted with the new issue as has been framed by the learned appellate Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a week's time to find out as to whether the learned appellate Court had framed the new issue after giving an opportunity to the parties.

¶21

In the meanwhile, it is open for the appellant to file an appropriate application for indicating the legal heirs of the respondents no. 2 & 3.

¶22

List this case after a week as fresh.

¶23

By the next date, learned counsel for the appellant would also file an affidavit duly bringing on record the decree of the learned trial Court.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Pachhere/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyampati v. Ram Karan Pandey and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyampati v. Ram Karan Pandey and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arti Tiwari and 4 Others vs New India Insurance Company Ltd., Faizabad Thru. Regional Manager and Others

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow Thru. Secy. vs Molhey

Ram Lal Saini vs Smt. Vimla Saini and Another

Devi Deen vs Umashanker

Jagdev Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Collecor Lko Collectorate Lko and Another

Putti Lal vs Ram Kishore and Another