Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Singh & Ors vs Guddi @ Urmila & Ors on 19 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010292
316. 2024:PHHC:010292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-872-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.01.2024
Bharat Singh and others ... Appellants
Versus
Guddi alias Urmila and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Aman Priye Jain, Advocate, for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
----
GURBIR SINGH, J.
1. The appellants-plaintiffs have preferred the present regular
second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2016 passed
by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, vide which, the appeal
filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2013 passed
by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Loharu, has been
dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter called,
"plaintiffs") filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the
effect that they are owners in joint possession of land, as mentioned in
the plaint, and the respondents-defendants have no right, title or interest
in the suit land. The plaintiffs claimed that their predecessors-in-interest
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010292
RSA-872-2016 (O&M) -2-
had been inducted as tenants over the suit land by the predecessors-in-
interest of the defendants for the last more than 50 years and since then,
they were in cultivable possession of the same. They have acquired
occupancy rights qua the suit land in view of Sections 5 and 8 of the
Tenancy Act. However, the defendants have refuted the claim of the
plaintiffs by asserting that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs
never cultivated the suit land. The plaintiffs failed to produce any
document qua their claim with regard to occupancy rights. The plaintiffs
lost before the courts below and their regular second appeal before this
Court was also dismissed vide judgment dated 28.03.2016. An
application to review the order dated 28.03.2016 was filed which was
allowed vide order dated 12.08.2016 passed by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that an
application dated 13.05.2015 (Annexure A-1) filed under Order 41 Rule
27 read with Section 151 CPC was moved by the appellants-plaintiffs
before the first Appellate Court to produce and prove the following
documents:-
"i) The statement on account of disbursement of
compensation regarding Khariff 2014 along with its
information vide letter dated 27.04.2015.
ii) Fard Badar dated 02.08.2012
iii) FIR No.80 dated 18.05.2013
iv) Jamabandi of the year 2011-12, 2006-2007.
v) Judgment and decree in Civil Suit No.222 of 2012."
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010292
RSA-872-2016 (O&M) -3-
Reply to that application was filed. However, said application was not
decided and remained pending whereas the appeal was decided as
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2016.
4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondents
when the matter is called.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellants and have gone through the file.
6. While deciding the first appeal, the learned Appellate Court
failed to take note of the pending application under Order 41 Rule 27
read with Section 151 CPC and also failed to decide whether additional
evidence could be allowed to be led in evidence. When said application
was filed by the appellants, it was the duty of the appellate Court to
decide the same on merits. Under such circumstances, the judgment
passed by the learned appellate Court deserves to be set aside.
7. In case Jatinder Singh and another Versus Mehar Singh,
(2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 465, the application for additional
evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was not decided by this Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by this Court
in Second Appeal and remitted it back to this Court for a decision afresh
in the Second Appeal alongwith the application for additional evidence.
8. In view of above discussions but without commenting on
the merits of the case, the judgment passed by the learned first Appellate
Court is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010292
RSA-872-2016 (O&M) -4-
Appellate Court to decide the application (Annexure A-1) filed by the
appellants-plaintiffs and thereafter, decide the appeal in accordance with
law.
9. Present appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate
Court on 07.02.2024.
11. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(GURBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
January 19, 2024
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010292
4 of 4
