AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.D. Anand, J.—Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had made an averment at the motion hearing that the verdict of the Appellate Authority deserves invalidation on account of the fact that a plea filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC remained undisposed of.
That averment on facts is not contested by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Caveator respondent.
There is plethora of law to support the averment on behalf of the petitioner that the matter would, in the given circumstances, require remand. The judicial pronouncements reported as Jagir Kaur v. Nirmal Singh 1993(2) PLR 375, Shadi Lal & Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Rewari 1994(2) CCC 358 (P&H): 1994(1) PLR 633, Sadhu Ram Verma v. Pawan Kumar 2006(2) RCR 95, Rajbir Singh v. Virender Singh & Ors. 1996(1) PLR 703, Charan Singh & Anr. v. Jagtar Singh & Ors. 1999(1) PLR 719, and Jatinder Singh and Another Minor through Mother Vs. Mehar Singh and Others, are supportive of that averment.
In the light of the facts noticed above, judgment dated 14.12.2009 shall stand set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Appellate Authority concerned for disposal afresh of the appeal after disposing of the plea under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in the first instance. The exercise shall be concluded in toto within one month of the date on which the matter comes to be listed before the Appellate Authority. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 01.022010.