Lrs Of Nimb Singh And Anr vs Amba Ram
2021 Latest Caselaw 661 Raj

(1 of 2) [CSA-308/2017]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 308/2017

Lrs Of Nimb Singh And Anr.

----Appellant Versus Lrs Of Achla

----Respondent Connected With

1. S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 313/2017

2. S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 314/2017

3. S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 315/2017

4. S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 316/2017

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Alkesh Agarwal For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

11/01/2021

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the

trial court decreed the suit, however, the appellate court reversed

the decree passed by the trial court, against which, the appellants

had approached this Court by filing second appeal. In the second

appeal, application filed by the appellants under Order XLI, Rule

27 CPC was allowed and matter was remanded back to the first

appellate court, however, the first appellate court has again

allowed the appeal and reversed the decree passed by the trial

court.

Submissions have been made that while the documents

produced and proved by the appellants, which have formed the

basis for the trial court to pass the judgment, have not been

considered, the documents produced under Order XLI, Rule 27

(2 of 2) [CSA-308/2017]

CPC by the respondent herein without any proof have been relied

on for reversing the decree passed by the trial court, which is not

justified.

In view of the submissions made, the following substantial

questions of law arise for consideration in the present second

appeal:-

(i) Whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree passed by the trial court without taking into consideration the documents produced by the appellants as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-10 and statements of the witnesses PW-1 to PW-13 ?

(ii) Whether the Appellate Court was justified in basing its judgment on documents, which were neither exhibited nor proved, merely based on the fact that the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC was allowed, ignoring the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 28 CPC ?

(iii) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the State of Rajasthan was a necessary party to the suit?

Admit. Issue notice.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 56 to 61 except Sr.No.57

-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)