Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Uttaradi Mutt – Appellant(s)
Versus
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9333 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.229 of 2018)
Decided On : 26-09-2018
(2012) 8 SCC 148 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27 – Production of additional documents – High Court categorically holding that the documents will need to be proved not only as to existence, authenticity and genuineness of the documents but also the contents thereof. (Para 11)
(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 23, 23-A, 25, 26, 27 and 28 – Remand of case by appellate court – Rule 23 and 23-A not limited to the decree disposing of the suit on a preliminary point – However, while doing so, appellate court must keep in mind rules 25 and 26 – Appellate Court may record the evidence itself by permitting the parties to produce evidence before it as per Rule 27; or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal under consideration has arisen, to do so – High Court not giving any special reason for remitting the matter to trial court – High Court could have framed the issues and referred them for adjudication before the First Appellate Court – Rules 28. (Para 14, 15, 16, 17)
(2009) 8 SCC 231; (2006) 13 SCC 775 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
In the first appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant, three applications under Order XLI Rule 27 for permission to produce additional evidence came to be filed by the respondent/defendant. The First Appellate Court considered the stated applications along with the first appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. The First Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the said applications preferred by the respondent/defendant; and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff on the basis of the evidence already brought on record before the trial Court. The suit filed by the appellant was decreed in part by the First Appellate Court.
The High Court reversed the opinion of the First Appellate Court including the rejection of stated three applications filed by the respondent/defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. The High Court instead allowed those applications and relegated the parties before the trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
High court should have framed issues and remitted the matter to first appellate court.
Result: Appeal and accompanying application disposed of.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 14th November, 2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.S.A. No.100446 of 2015, whereby the High Court was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and also that of the trial Court and relegated the parties before the trial Court, by allowing three applications filed by the respondent/defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, “CPC”). The High Court directed the trial Court to decide the suit afresh by giving its findings in light of the additional evidence adduced. The operative part of the order passed by the High Court reads thus:
“25. Therefore, this Court cannot decide the substantial questions of law on which the said present second appeal was admitted on 13.04.2016 at this stage and the matter deserves to go back to the trial Court by allowing the three applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. All the three applications filed by the Defendant/Appellant-RSM under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC therefore, are allowed and setting aside the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the FAC in its entirety, because even otherwise it appears to be self contradictory and vague partial injunction granted by FAC, the matter is restored back to the learned trial Court to allow the said additional evidences to be placed on record and allow the parties to prove and disprove the same in accordance with law and then re-decide the suit giving its findings in the light of such additional evidence.
In view of the long lapse of time, the trial Court is requested to expedite the matter and decide the suit again expeditiously.
The present appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. All I.As. are also disposed of.”
2. The central issue in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the three applications filed by the respondent/defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 before the First Appellate Court. Furthermore, even if there was just and sufficient reason for allowing the three applications, was the High Court justified in relegating the parties before the trial Court and directing the trial Court to re-decide the suit by giving its findings in light of the additional evidence?
3. This case has a chequered history. Shorn of unnecessary details we propose to refer only to the facts relevant to decide this appeal. In the first appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad bearing R.A. No.124 of 2014 (Original R.A. No.14 of 2011 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gangawathi) against the dismissal of the suit by the Additional Civil Judge, Gangawathi vide judgment and decree dated 18th June, 2011 in O.S. No.74 of 2010 (Original O.S. No.193 of 1992), three applications under Order XLI Rule 27 for permission to produce additional evidence came to be filed by the respondent/defendant. The First Appellate Court considered the stated applications along with the first appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. The First Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the said applications preferred by the respondent/defendant; and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff on the basis of the evidence already brought on record before the trial Court. The suit filed by the appellant was decreed in part by the First Appellate Court. The operative order passed by the First Appellate Court dated 22nd April, 2015, reads thus:
“ORDER
The Application filed by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed.
The Application filed by the Appellant filed by the Appellant under Order 14 Rule 5 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed.
The Application filed by the Respondent under Order 14 Rule 5 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed.
The Applications filed by the Respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 R/
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.
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
