IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 Regular Second Appeal No.1892 of 2022 (O & M)

Date of decision :-13.11.2025 Bharat Singh (since deceased) through his legal heir Satish Kumar …..Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation, Gurugram through its Commissioner, Civil Lines, Gurugram …..Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate for Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Ayushi, Advocate for Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

The appellant/plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit of the appellant for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

The short submission made by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that the impugned judgment and decree of the lower first Appellate Court dated 17.8.2022 is not maintainable in view of the fact that the application dated 21.3.2015 (Annexure A-1)

filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permission to adduce additional evidence, has not been decided by the learned lower Appellate Court while deciding the first appeal of the appellant on merits, thereby causing prejudice to the appellant.

In support, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hakam Singh vs. State of Haryana, (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID #146054; and Sanjiv Goel vs. Avtar S. Sandhu 2006(9) SCC 748 Law Finder Doc Id #191076; as well as the judgment of this Court in Kanwaljit Singh vs. Bhupinder Kaur (since deceased, through her LRs) and another 2024(1) Law Herald 574 Law Finder Doc Id #2564852 to submit that it has been held therein that while deciding the appeal, it is also incumbent upon the Appellate Court to decide the application of the applicant for leading additional evidence.

Learned counsel in this regard also refers to the Grounds of Appeal, in particular to the averments made in Para 6 thereof, wherein this ground has been raised by the appellant in the present Second Appeal. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that the respondent/defendant has even filed reply dated 20.2.2018 (Annexure A-2) to his application dated 21.3.2015 (Annexure A-1).

Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to dispute the aforesaid facts, and legal position.

Heard.

Upon consideration of the submissions made and from perusal of the record, it is evident that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC remained undecided. The First Appellate Court was bound in law to first adjudicate upon the said application before deciding the appeal on merits, as the outcome of that application could have had a material bearing on the final decision.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.8.2022 passed by the learned lower first Appellate Court are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court to first consider and decide the appellant’s application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in accordance with law, and thereafter to decide the appeal afresh on merits within a period of one year from today.

The parties are directed to appear before the learned lower first Appellate Court on 22.12.2025 for further proceedings.

However, it is made clear that nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

The present appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned first Appellate Court, immediately, so that the parties may be in a position to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on the date so fixed.

November 13, 2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA )

JUDGE Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No