Amarjit Singh and Another vs Gobinder Singh and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.

C.M.No.30881-CII of 2010

The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.8.2010 vide which their application under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC has been declined.

C.R.No.7836 of 2010

The facts of the case are that prior to the instant proceedings the suit of the Respondents was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2007 against which the Petitioners had filed an appeal. The appeal was accepted with the following observations:

...It is revealed that the Plaintiff No. 2 Prem Singh deceased was represented by Gobinder Singh son of Hardit Singh and Defendant No. 1 Jagat Singh son of Harjit Singh after his death was also represented by same Gobinder Singh. When Gobinder Singh is representing Plaintiff No. 2 as well as Defendant No. 1, the judgment and decree under appeal cannot be said to be legal one. The learned Counsel for the Appellants states that he will move necessary application in the lower court if case is remanded back. So, in these circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree are hereby set aside and case is remanded to the learned Lower Court to decide the suit afresh after getting the above said illegality removed.

The matter was thus remanded back to the trial court on a limited aspect which pertained to the rectification of the necessary parties to the suit. It was also noticed therein that on an application being made by the Petitioners the said rectification was to be made by the trial court.

The Petitioners then moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC contending that there is some evidence which they wish to lead to ensure proper adjudication of the matter which was declined by virtue of the impugned order dated 30.8.2010 and which is the cause of grievance of the Petitioners in the instant revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends with emphasis on the directive of the first Appellate Court ''to decide the suit afresh'' that it would amount to a de novo trial of the entire proceedings and, therefore, their right to lead additional evidence in the given set of circumstances could not be impeded by the interpretation that has been put by the court vide the impugned order.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, I am of the view that the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners does not merit any acceptance. The matter was remitted back on a limited aspect and the trial Court was thus required to address that limited aspect of the matter pertaining to the rectification of the parties represented and impleaded in the suit. By no stretch of imagination can it mean that the entire suit has to be decided afresh.The Court has thus appreciated the controversy in the right perspective. No ground to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction has been made out.

Dismissed.