Remanded¶25

Hoshiar Singh and Anr. v. Bijender Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jan 2025RSA/1079/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-1079-2022; CM-11574-C-2024; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Deepak Gupta, J.; specific performance suit; refund of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest; Order 41 Rule 27 CPC additional evidence application not considered; First Appellate Court judgment dated 03.03.2022 set aside; remand for fresh disposal within 03 months; Section 151 CPC preponement allowed.

What did the court decide?

Judgment dated 03.03.2022 of the First Appellate Court set aside; appeal remanded to the First Appellate Court to decide the appellants' application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in accordance with law and dispose of the appeal, with every endeavour to do so within 03 months of receipt of the order. ¶25

Hoshiar Singh and Anr. Vs Bijender Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating upon the appellants' application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the record of the First Appellate Court fortifies the appellants' contention that the First Appellate Court did not advert to their application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before dismissing the appeal.

¶23

Key takeaways

RSA-1079-2022 is disposed of by setting aside the First Appellate Court's judgment dated 03.03.2022, with a direction to dispose of the appeal after taking a decision on the Order 41 Rule 27 CPC application in accordance with law.ratio¶25
The First Appellate Court shall make every possible endeavour to dispose of the appeal within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of the order.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J., oral) allowed CM-11574-C-2024 under Section 151 CPC and heard RSA-1079-2022 the same day. The appeal challenged the First Appellate Court's judgment dated 03.03.2022 dismissing the defendants' appeal against the trial Court's decree of 12.02.2016 in a specific-performance suit, whereby specific performance was declined but defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to refund Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest. On the appellants' contention — not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff — that the First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal without even adverting to their pending application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence, the Court found the record to fortify the contention, set aside the judgment dated 03.03.2022 and remanded the appeal to the First Appellate Court to decide the said application in accordance with law and dispose of the appeal, with every possible endeavour to complete disposal within three months of receipt of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

120

¶3

CM-11574-C-2024 in/and RSA-1079-2022 Date of Decision: 20.01.2025

¶4

HOSHIAR SINGH AND ANR

¶5

…..Pe,,oner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

BIJENDER SINGH AND ORS …..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate for the applicant-pe��oner.

¶10

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the respondents.

¶11

¶12

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CM-11574-C-2024

¶14

This is an applica�on filed under Sec�on 151 CPC for preponing the date of hearing of the main case i.e. RSA-1079-2022 to some early date.

¶15

Fresh Power of a,orney has been filed on behalf of appellant No.2 Learned counsel for the respondent has no objec�on if the applica�on is allowed.

¶16

In view of the above, applica�on is allowed and the date of hearing of the main case i.e. RSA-1079-2022 is preponed for today and as such, the main case i.e. RSA-1079-2022 is taken on board for hearing today itself.

¶17

Main case

¶18

Suit filed by the plain�ff seeking a decree for specific performance was decided by the trial Court on 12.02.2016, whereby though the relief of specific performance was declined but defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein) were directed to refund the amount of �10,00,000/- to the plain�ff along with the interest. Defendants filed appeal before the First Appellate Court, which was dismissed on 03.03.2022.

¶19

It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the appellant that during pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Court, an applica�on under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was moved for addi�onal evidence and that the First Appellate Court did not even advert to that applica�on, before dismissing the

¶20

appeal.

¶21

PRIYANKA 2025.01.20 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CM-11574-C-2024 in/and -2RSA-1079-2022

¶23

The perusal of the record of the First Appellate Court, for�fies the aforesaid conten�on by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶24

Faced with this situa�on, learned counsel for the respondentplan�ff has no objec�on, in case the ma,er is remanded back to the First Appellate Court by se:ng aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and with direc�on to the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal in the �me bound manner.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present appeal i.e. RSA-1079-2022 is hereby disposed of by se:ng aside the judgment dated 03.03.2022 passed by the First Appellate Court, with the direc�on to dispose of the same, a;er taking a decision on the applica�on under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in accordance with law.

¶26

The First Appellate Court shall make every possible endeavour to dispose of the appeal within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶27

Pending applica�on(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶28

(DEEPAK GUPTA ) 20.01.2025 JUDGE pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶29

PRIYANKA 2025.01.20 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Hoshiar Singh and Anr. v. Bijender Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hoshiar Singh and Anr. v. Bijender Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonia Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Subhash Vs Nirmala Devi and Ors.

Karanveer Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Omkar

Kewal Krishan Sharma and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harpreet Kaur Vs the Fatehgarh Sahib Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Head Office Sirhind