- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jatinder Singh And Another Minor Through Mother v. Mehar Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants (plaintiffs) instituted a suit seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated 29-5-1989—executed by Respondents 1 to 3 in favour of Respondents 9 and 10—and an earlier compromise dated 7-4-1986 in the suit titled Ujagar Singh v. Puran Singh were invalid. The trial court dismissed the suit, as did the first appellate court. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in Regular Second Appeal No. 4174 of 2002, also dismissed the matter on the ground that no substantial question of law arose. During the pendency of that second appeal, the appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to adduce additional documentary evidence (e.g., military service certificate, voter list, tax receipts, ration card). The High Court overlooked this application when dismissing the appeal. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal without first adjudicating the appellants’ application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for admission of additional evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the appellants had formally moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC while the second appeal was pending before the High Court. The High Court, however, completely failed to notice or decide that application. The Court held that when such an application is on record, the appellate court is duty-bound to consider its merits before disposing of the appeal. Because this procedural requirement was not met, the dismissal of the second appeal could not stand. The Supreme Court explicitly refrained from expressing any view on:
- The merits of the additional-evidence application; and
- The substantive merits of the second appeal itself.
The matter was therefore remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing it to decide both the second appeal and the Order 41 Rule 27 application in accordance with law.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the second appeal, along with the pending application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for fresh disposal.
Implications: The decision restores the second appeal to the High Court’s docket, obliging that court to determine—within approximately six months—the admissibility of the proffered additional evidence and then decide the merits of the appeal. No broader legal precedent was established; the ruling affects only the present litigants and reinforces the procedural obligation of appellate courts to rule on Order 41 Rule 27 applications before concluding an appeal.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 4174 of 2002, by which the second appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed as the High Court did not find any substantial question of law to be decided in the aforesaid second appeal.
3. In our view, this appeal can be decided on a very short question. The trial court as well as the appellate court and finally the High Court in the second appeal dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiffs for declaration challenging the sale deed dated 29-5-1989 executed by Respondents 1 to 3 in favour of Respondents 9 and 10 as well as the compromise (Ext. C-1) dated 7-4-1986 in a suit titled Ujagar Singh v. Puran Singh, but it is an admitted position that before the High Court, the appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for acceptance of additional evidence, namely, documents such as certificate of military service, voters' list of the assembly segment concerned for the year 1982, receipt of house tax 1988-1989, payment of chaowkdra of kharif 1986, rabi 1990, rabi 1991, kharif 1992, identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, ration card, etc.
4. While deciding the second appeal, however, the High Court had failed to take notice of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decide whether additional evidence could be permitted to be admitted into evidence. In our view, when an application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the same on merits. That being the admitted position, we have no other alternative but to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the appeal back to it for a decision afresh in the second appeal along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence in accordance with law.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
6. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits as to whether the application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be allowed or not, which shall be decided by the High Court at the time of decision of the second appeal in accordance with law. We also make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the second appeal which shall also be decided by the High Court along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the High Court to dispose of the second appeal at an early date preferably within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it.
7. In view of the order passed in CA No. 578 of 2008 arising out of SLP (C) No. 18759 of 2006, Contempt Petition (C) No. 57 of 2008 is disposed of.
8. In view of our decision in the appeal itself, we do not feel inclined to entertain the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner during when the matter was kept for judgment. Accordingly, the said application for interim direction is disposed of as infructuous.
Alert