______________________________________________________________________ vs Neelam Kumari

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                           SHIMLA

                                                                            RSA No.327 of 2019




                                                                                     .
                                                           Date of Decision: 25.02.2021





    ______________________________________________________________________
    Jagdish Ram and others                                                              .....Appellants





                                         Versus


    Neelam Kumari                                                                       ..... Respondent
    ______________________________________________________________________





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the Appellants:                   Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate.

    For the Respondent:                  Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.

    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge -II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No.143 of 2017, affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in civil Suit No.3 of 2005, whereby suit for permanent prohibitory injunction having been filed by the respondent/plaintiff came to be decreed.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Precisely, the challenge to judgment rendered by learned First Appeal Court is on the ground that before passing the impugned judgment, Court below has failed to decide two pending applications .

filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC, respectively.

3. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff. He fairly states that though there is specific mention with regard to aforesaid applications in the impugned judgment passed by learned First Appellate Court, but the same have been admittedly not decided by the court below before passing the final judgment. Otherwise also, perusal of record of learned Court below itself suggests that court below has not decided the aforesaid applications before passing final judgment.

4. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff, this Court at this stage without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to remand the case back to learned First Appellate Court, enabling it to decide the aforesaid applications alongwith main appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.143 of 2017.

5. Consequently, in view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Una, District ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 20:15:59 :::HCHP 3 Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.143 of 2017, titled as Jagdish Ram and others versus Smt. Neelam Kumari, is quashed and set-aside and learned First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal .

afresh in terms of the observations made hereinabove. Since, appeal is pending before the court below for the last three years, this Court hopes and trust that learned Court below shall make all out efforts to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today.

6. Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to cause presence of their respective clients before the Court below on 8.3.2021, enabling it to do the needful well within stipulated time.

7. The present appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms alongwith pending applications, if any.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge 25th February,2021 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 20:15:59 :::HCHP