Smt. Indira & Another vs Smt. Ram Pyari Alias Asha & Others on 22 September, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Smt. Indira & Another vs Smt. Ram Pyari Alias Asha & Others on 22 September, 2016

Bench: Sanjay Karol

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                   SHIMLA

                                         FAO No. 127 of 2014
                                         Date of Decision: 22.09.2016
    Smt. Indira & another                                                       ...Appellants.




                                                                                .

                                         Versus
    Smt. Ram Pyari alias Asha & others           ..Respondents.
    Coram:





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1No.




                                                     of
    For the Appellants:                        Mr. R.K. Bawa, Sr. Advocate with
                                               Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the
                                               appellants.
    For the Respondents   rt                   Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for
                                               the respondents.
    Sanjay Karol, J (oral)

In view of the statutory provisions (Order 41 Rules 23, 23-A, 24 and 25 of CPC) as also law laid down by the Apex Court in P. Purushottam Reddy and another Versus Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 686 and by this Court in Madho Ram Versus Sumati Sood and others, (2002) 3 Shim.

LC 350, order dated 24.01.2014, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Civil appeal No.115- S/13 of 2012, titled as Smt. Ram Pyari alias Asha & others Versus Shrimati Indira & another, making wholesale remand of the case by the Appellate Court is legally unsustainable.

2. In the given facts and circumstances, keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the fact that parties are in litigation since the year 2012 and also that the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:17:34 :::HCHP 2

controversy in issue pertains to the year 2007-2008, it would be only prudent, just fair, as also in the interest of parties that the lower Appellate Court itself records the evidence, as required and desired, on the additional issues, .

so framed, by itself, in terms of the impugned order.

3. As such, operative portion of the order, insofar as it directs remand of the case to the trial Court, is quashed and set aside with the following direction s:

of

(i). The Appellate Court shall decide the issues by allowing the parties to lead evidence within a rt

(ii).

time bound period.

Parties undertake to appear before the Appellate Court on 20.10.2016.

(iii). Parties undertake to fully cooperate and except for the official witnesses , produce the evidence/witnesses at their own responsibility.

                  (iv).    Hearing is expedited.
                  (v).     An endeavour shall be made by the Appellate

Court to decide the matter on or before 31.03.2017.

4. No other point is urged.

5. In view of the above, present petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any.

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

September 22, 2016 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:17:34 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court