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.
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.