AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J
Records reveal that the only ground which prevailed upon the learned first appellate Court to remand the matter back was that the name of defendant No.2 had been wrongly reflected as Vandna Sood instead of Kamini Sood. This fact itself could not have been a ground to remand the case for more than one reasons, firstly because the decree-sheet clearly reflected the name of defendant No.2 to be Kamini Sood and not Vandna Sood and, secondly, the first Appellate Court itself vide order dated 22.04.2019 had already corrected the name by allowing the application that had been moved under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the parties by respondent No.1.
In such circumstances, this Court has no option but to set-aside the order passed by learned first Appellate Court. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the learned first Appellate Court is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and thereafter decide the same on merits as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 30th June, 2021.
The parties through their counsel(s) to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on 08.04.2021. Registry to ensure that the records be remitted back to the Court below so as to reach well before the date fixed.
The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
However, before parting, I am constrained to observe that of late the Presiding Judges of the Courts below are trying to adopt shortcut methods of disposing/deciding cases, that too, wrongly, ostensibly for completing their disposal units. This practice needs to be curbed forthwith.