Back
1999 Supreme(SC) 1648
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
Girja Kumar (1) & others - Appellants
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1348 of 1999. (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16485 of 1998)
Decided On : 8-3-1999
The appropriate evidence should be led before the trial court, and it is not for the High Court to send the matter back to cure any lacuna in the evidence.
Headnote:
Lacuna in Evidence - Remand by High Court - The High Court erred in remanding the case back to the trial court to cure the lacuna in evidence. The appropriate evidence should have been led before the trial court, and it is not for the High Court to send the matter back to cure any lacuna in the evidence.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was filed by the present appellant, decreed by the trial court, and the first appeal was dismissed. In the second appeal, the High Court noted a paucity of evidence and remanded the case back to the trial court for re-examination.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in remanding the case and held that whoever has not led the appropriate evidence before the trial court must suffer for it. The order under challenge was set aside, and the second appeal was restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh on the available evidence.
Issues: The issue was whether the High Court was correct in remanding the case back to the trial court due to a paucity of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that it is not for the High Court to send the matter back to cure any lacuna in the evidence and that the appropriate evidence should have been led before the trial court.
Final Decision: The order under challenge was set aside, and the second appeal was restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh on the available evidence. No order as to costs.
ORDER :
S.P. Bharucha, J. - Leave granted.
2. The order under appeal has been passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on a second appeal filed by the present first respondent. A suit had been filed by the present appellant. It was decreed by the trial court and the first appeal was dismissed. In the second appeal, the High Court noted that a certain order has not been placed on record by the present appellant though a challenge had been made to it in the plaint. It found after going through the impugned judgment and the record "that the case suffers from paucity of evidence". In the learned Judge's view the case needed to be re-examined by the trial court in order to resolve the controversy in question. Accordingly both the judgments and decree were set aside and the case was remanded back to the trial court for a decision afresh in accordance with law.
3. We are of the opinion that the High Court was in error. Whoever has not led the appropriate evidence before the trial court must suffer for it. It is not for the High Court to send the matter back to cure any lacuna in the evidence. The order under challenge must, therefore, be set aside and the second appeal (Second Appeal No. 304 of 1992) restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh on the available evidence. Order on the appeal accordingly.
4. No order as to costs.
