Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Arvind Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ex-parte proceedings due to counsel's non-appearance. (Para 1) |
| 2. appellate court failed to assess trial order's legality. (Para 2) |
| 3. appellate court must evaluate legality, not re-decide afresh. (Para 3) |
| 4. impugned judgment set aside; remanded for fresh adjudication. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT :
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
1. In terms of order dated 09.10.2025, Sh. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel, had put in appearance for the respondents, but, today despite repeated calls, he has not put in appearance and as per the report of the Registry, he has also not filed the Power of Attorney, therefore, respondent No.1 is ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed judgment dated 21.09.2024, passed by the learned Appellate Court, in an appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant, in terms whereof, the appeal was allowed and order dated 01.12.2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Court No.1, Hamirpur, H.P., in an application filed under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is not sustainable in th
Appellate Court reviewing trial Court order under Order 39 Rule 2-A must assess its legality vis-à-vis pleadings and evidence, not re-decide violation as Court of first instance despite re-appreciati....
Non-speaking orders refusing extension of interim stay are unsustainable; courts must record reasons for not continuing previously granted protection against residence relief.
The appellate Court cannot set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remand the case without specific findings on the issues and without considering the findings given by the trial Cou....
The duty of the appellate court to comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, consider evidence on record, and frame proper points for determination.
Article 227 jurisdiction not to interfere with lower courts absent perversity; prior deletion of deceased defendant from parties negates abatement or substitution issue post-remand.
The appellate court has the discretion to remand a case for a fresh trial when new evidence is introduced, ensuring fairness in the judicial process.
An Appellate Court must engage with the merits of a case rather than remit it for retrial when all issues have been resolved at the Trial Court.
Evidence from Order XXI Rule 32 application cannot be used in Order XXI Rule 31 proceedings; disregard of prior High Court order prohibiting such reliance renders impugned order perverse.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
