Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1099 (HP)

Rajender Singh v. Mani Ram

2014-08-20

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral). Having regard to the nature of order I propose to pass, it may not be very necessary to note the material facts save and except that the plaintiffs/appellants, who had lost in both the learned Courts below, had preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned lower Appellate Court wherein they produced the following documents: “(i) Order passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Nahan in Execution Petition No.2/10 of 1998 dated 16.9.1999. (ii) The report of the Collector, Sirmaur District dated 18th November, 1999, in respect of warrant of possession of the land in case titled “Mani Ram versus Ramesh Chand etc.” case No. 2/10 of 1998, fixed for 20.11.1999. (iii) Order dated 20.12.1999 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Nahan. (iv) Certified copy of the warrant of possession in original. (v) Certified copy of the report of Tehsildar, Nahan in respect of the warrant of possession issued in case No. 2/10 of 1998. (vi) Certified copy of the report of Field Kanungo dated 18.11.1999. (vii) Subsequent warrant of possession dated 20.11.1999. (viii) Report of the Tehsildar, Nahan, dated 10.12.1999. (ix) Certified copy of the report of Field Kanungo dated 3.12.1999. (x) Certified copy of statement of Shri Babu Ram, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Nahan, dated 3.12.1999. (xi) Certified copy of the report of Field Kanungo dated 18.12.1999. (xii) Order of Executing Court dated 2.12.1999. (xiii) The report of the Tehsildar, Nahan, dated 16.11.1999 and (xiv) Certified copy of the report of Field Kanungo dated 15.11.1999.” These documents were exhibited as Ex.AW-1/A to Ex.AW-1/N and the application was ordered to be heard along with the main appeal. 2. While deciding the main appeal, the learned lower Appellate Court has not at all made mention of the application and the exhibited documents accompanying the same and in a slipshod manner has proceeded to decide the appeal. 3. The Court only needs to remind that the legislature has entrusted a very important duty upon the first Appellate Court as it is for that Court to decide finally all questions of fact on which the disposal of the suit might depend. 3. The Court only needs to remind that the legislature has entrusted a very important duty upon the first Appellate Court as it is for that Court to decide finally all questions of fact on which the disposal of the suit might depend. As a Court of First Appeal, it was the duty of the Court below to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties before recording its findings, particularly by discussing the additional evidence. 4. The learned lower Appellate Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it. The judgment under appeal is absolutely cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have been noticed. The appeal has been decided in a very unsatisfactory manner. 5. First Appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard on both the questions of law and facts and the judgment in first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of such findings. 6. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court on 26.9.2001 in Civil Appeal No. 95-CA/13 of 2000/1999 is set-aside and the learned lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Looking into the fact that the suit has been instituted more than 21 years back on 10.6.1993, it is expected that the learned lower Appellate Court shall decide the suit latest by 31st December, 2014. 7. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned lower Appellate Court on 12.9.2014. The records of the learned Courts below be sent back immediately so as to reach well before the date fixed.