Ashwani Kumar and Anr. Vs Jarnail Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ashwani Kumar and Anr. Vs Jarnail Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal disposed of accordingly: impugned judgment and decree dated 16.04.2016 set aside; matter remanded to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh to first decide application dated 25.01.2016 (leading additional evidence) in accordance with law and thereafter decide the first appeal afresh on merits within one year; parties directed to appear before the District Judge, Chandigarh on 26.05.2026; expressly no opinion on merits; Registry to send copy of the order to the District Judge immediately and return the original records of both District Courts; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court acted contrary to law in deciding Civil Appeal No. 546 on merits without first adjudicating the appellants' application dated 25.01.2016 for leading additional evidence, and whether the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2016 should therefore be set aside and the matter remanded.

Court's answer

The First Appellate Court was bound in law to first adjudicate upon the appellants' application for leading additional evidence before deciding the appeal on merits, as the outcome of that application could have had a material bearing on the final decision.

Ratio / Principle

Since the application dated 25.01.2016 for leading additional evidence remained undecided, the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.04.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh is set aside.

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh to first consider and decide application dated 25.01.2016 for leading additional evidence in accordance with law, and thereafter to decide the appeal afresh on merits within a period of one year.ratio¶23
Nothing stated in the order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta, J., oral), 29.04.2026 — RSA-4514-2016 (O&M), Ashwani Kumar Sachdeva and another v. Jarnail Singh Sethi and others. Second appeal against concurrent judgments/decrees of the District Courts partly decreeing a suit for recovery. During pendency of Civil Appeal No. 546 dated 20.11.2014 before the District Judge, Chandigarh, the defendant-appellants moved application dated 25.01.2016 (record pages 89–93) for leading additional evidence; the First Appellate Court decided the appeal (judgment/decree dated 16.04.2016) without adjudicating that application. HELD: an Appellate Court is bound in law to first adjudicate an application for leading additional evidence before deciding the appeal on merits, since its outcome could materially bear on the final decision. The impugned judgment and decree were set aside and the matter remanded to the District Judge, Chandigarh — to first decide the application, then decide the appeal afresh on merits within one year; parties to appear on 26.05.2026; expressly no expression of opinion on the merits. Counsel's reliance (uncontroverted) on Hakam Singh v. State of Haryana (SC, LawFinder Doc ID 146054), Sanjiv Goel v. Avtar S. Sandhu (2006) 9 SCC 748, and co-ordinate Bench decision CR-7922-2025, Bharat Bhushan v. Kulwant Singh and others (decided 06.11.2025), was accepted.

RSA-4514-2016 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225 RS A -4514-2016 (O&M) Dat e of Decision: 29.04.2026

Ashwani K umar Sachdeva and another .… Appellants

Versus

Jarnail Sin g h Sethi and others .... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Ad v ocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate for t he respondents.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The appellant-defendants ar e in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the District Court whereby the suit for recovery has been partly decreed.

At the very outset, it is subm i tted by learned counsel for the appellants that during the pendency of a p peal bearing Civil Appeal No. 546 dated 20.11.2014, the appellant/de f endants have also moved an applicatio n dated 25.01.2016 (at page Nos . 89 to 93 of the original record of the Ist A ppellate Court) for leading add i tional evidence which has been duly take n note of by the learned Distri c t Judge, Chandigarh in zimni orders w.e . f. 25.01.2016 up to the date of passing of impugned judgment and decree dated 16.04.2016. It is, howeve r , submitted that while deciding the main C ivil Appeal, the learned Distr i ct Judge, Chandigarh, had not decided the said application moved by t h e appellants, thereby causing prejudice t o the appellants.

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-4514-2016 (O&M) -2-

In support, learned counsel f o r the appellants relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i n (i) Hakam Singh vs. State of Haryana, (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID #146054; (ii) Sanjiv Goel vs. Avtar S. Sandhu 2006(9) SCC 748 Law Finder Doc Id #191076; as well as the judgment o f a co-ordinate Bench this C o urt in CR-7922-2025 titled as Bharat Bhushan vs. Kulwant Singh and others, decided on 06.11.2025, to submit t hat it has been held therein that while deciding the appeal, it is also incu m bent upon the Appellate Court t o decide the application of the applicant fo r leading additional evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the res p ondent-plaintiffs is unable to refute or controvert the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellants.

Heard.

Upon consideration of the submissions made and from perusal of t he record, it is evident that the a pplication dated 25.01.2016 (at page Nos. 89 to 93 of the original reco r d of the Ist Appellate Court) moved b y the appellants for leading additional evidence remained undecided. The First Appellate Court was bound in law to first adjudicate upon the s aid application before decidin g the appeal on merits, as the outcome o f that application could have ha d a material bearing on the final decision.

In view of the above, the i m pugned judgment and decree dated 16. 0 4.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh is hereby set aside . The matter is remand e d back to the learned District Judge, C h andigarh to first consider a nd decide application dated 25.01.201 6 (at page Nos. 89 to 93 of the original record of the Ist

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-4514-2016 (O&M)

-3-

Appellate C ourt) moved by the appellants for leading additional evidence in accord a nce with law, and thereafter t o decide the appeal afresh on merits wit h in a period of one year from to d ay.

The parties are directed to ap p ear before the learned District Judge, Ch a ndigarh on 26.05.2026 for furth e r proceedings. 9. However, it is made clear th a t nothing stated above shall be construed a s an expression of opinion on t h e merits of the case.

The present second appeal sta n ds disposed of accordingly. 11. The Registry is directed to s e nd a copy of this order to the learned Di s trict Judge, Chandigarh, imme d iately, so that the parties may be in a position to appear before the learne d District Judge, Chandigarh on the date s o fixed. Registry is also directed to return the original record of both the D i strict Courts, along with the co p y of this order. 12. Pending application(s), if any , shall stands disposed of.

29.04.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.01 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.