SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 941

1997(7) Supreme 147
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Majmudar & M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Gurdev Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Mehnga Ram & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4726 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12597 of 1996)
Decided on 11-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants, Munilal Verma, Sr. Advocate, Devender Verma,, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Advocates.
For the Respondents, P.N. Puri, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court should not interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction with order passed by appellate Court for additional evidence at appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27(b) C.P.C.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 41 Rule 27(b)-Additional evidence at appellate stage-High Court should not interfere with order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction-At this interim stage, High Court should not have felt itself convinced that order was without jurisdiction. (Para 2)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the appellants before us is that in an appeal filed by them before the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, in an application under Order XLI Rule 27(b), Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the learned Additional District Judge at the final hearing of the appeal wrongly felt that additional evidence was required to produced as requested by the appellants by way of examination of a hand-writing expert. The High Court in the impugned order exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC took the view that the order of the Appellate Court could not be sustained. In our view the approach of the High Court in revision at that interim stage when the appeal was pending for final hearing before the learned Additional District Judge was not justified and the High Court should not have interfered with the order which was within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The reason is obvious. The Appellate Court hearing the matter finally could exercise jurisdiction one way or the other under Order XLI Rule 27 specially clause (b). If the order was wrong on merits, it would always be open for the respondent to challenge the same in accordance with law if an occasion arises to carry the matter in Second Appeal after an appellate decree is passed. But at this interim stage, the High Court should not have felt itself convinced that the order was without jurisdiction. Only on this short question, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved and on the legality of the contentions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties regarding additional evidence, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court. In the result, the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur shall now decide the appeal on its own merits. We make it clear that the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dated 12.12.1995 shall now be complied with, subject to the liberty reserved to the respondent as aforesaid.

Appeal allowed.

********

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

Gurdev Singh & Ors. v. Mehnga Ram & Anr., 1997(7) Supreme 147 : JT 1997(7) SC 56 : AIR 1997 5372 : 1997(6) SCC 507

00023

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top