Partly allowed

Sudesh Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Council Jind

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Sept 2006SAO/14/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges observations made by the District Judge on the merits of the case while remanding it to the trial court after allowing amendment of pleadings. The High Court upheld the remand order but directed the trial court to ignore the District Judge's observations on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is upheld regarding remand; the trial court is directed to ignore the District Judge's observations on merits when re-deciding the matter.

Sudesh Kumar Gupta Vs Municipal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

S.A.O. No. 14 of 2002 Date of decision September 13, 2006

Sudesh Kumar Gupta

.......Appellant

Versus

Municipal Council, Jind

¶7

........Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL

¶9

Present:Sh. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

¶11

Viney Mittal, J (Oral)

¶12

The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. He is aggrieved against the order dated March 15, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind whereby in an appeal filed by the defendant Municipal Council, Jind, after allowing the amendment of the written statement, the matter has been remanded back to the learned trial Judge for a fresh decision.

¶13

During the course of arguments, Sh. Surya Parkash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has brought to my notice that the learned District Judge, while remanding the case back to the trial Judge, had made observations on merits of the case and had even held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. The learned counsel has argued that once the matter was being remanded back to the trial Judge for a fresh decision after framing additional issues arising out of the amended pleadings, the aforesaid observations of learned District Judge

¶14

-2-

¶15

S.A.O. No. 14 of 2002

¶16

are unwarranted and are likely to prejudice the case of the plaintiff.

¶17

I have duly considered the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel and have perused the impugned order passed by learned District Judge dated March 15, 2002. In my considered view, the appellant cannot take any exception to the order of the remand of the case passed by the learned District Judge inasmuch as the amendment of the written statement of the defendant has been allowed. Out of the amended pleadings additional issues arise for consideration.

¶18

However, the plaintiff-appellant is absolutely justified in making grievance against the observations made by the learned District Judge on the merits of the controversy.

¶19

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of and the order dated March 15, 2002 passed by the District Judge, Jind is upheld to the extent that the matter has been remanded back to the trial Judge for a fresh decision after permitting the amendment of the written statement and allowing the plaintiff to file replication to the amended written statement. The trial Judge shall also consequently frame additional issues arising out of the amended pleadings of the parties. However, it is directed that none of the observations made on the merits of the controversy by the learned District Judge, Jind shall be taken into consideration by the trial Judge while re-deciding the matter a fresh.

¶20

The present appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶21

S.A.O. No. 14 of 2002 -3-

¶22

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear

¶23

before the trial Judge on November 6, 2006.

¶24

(VINEY MITTAL) JUDGE

¶25

September 13, 2006 archana

Sudesh Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Council Jind

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudesh Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Council Jind

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Singh Vs Hy.St.

Pseb, Patiala and Another Vs Raj Kumar and Another

Ram Saran and Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat of Village Ramraipur

Laxmi Devi Vs Promilla Sharma

Gurdev Singh Vs Hy.St.

M/S P.L.Due Vs Punjab Small Industries Export Corp. Ltd.