Balbir Singh vs Vinod Kumar & Others on 6 November, 2009

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                 CHANDIGARH

                                     CM No.1717-C of 2007
                                     CM No.1883-C of 2009 &
                                     RSA No.2531 of 2007
                                     Decided on : 06.11.2009

Balbir Singh                                       ... Appellant

                            versus

Vinod Kumar & others                               ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present : Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate
          for the appellant.

           Mr. R.S.Mittal, Sr. Advocate
           for respondents No.1 & 2.
                                ****

1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see
  the judgment?
2.To be referred to the reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)

On 22.04.2008, the following order was passed:

“Learned counsel for the appellant contends that
the judgment dt. 31.01.2005 rendered by the
competent court of law was placed on the file before
the first appellate court by way of additional evidence.
The application moved in that behalf was not decided
in spite of the fact that the reply of the same was also
filed by the opposite side and the aforesaid judgment
being a subsequent event has bearing on the merits of
the case in hand.

Notice of motion for 01.09.2008.

In the meantime, status quo shall be maintained
with regard to alienation of the suit property.”

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents is not in a position to deny that this application was
RSA No.2531 of 2007 -2-

not decided by the ld. Lower Appellate Court. With regard to the

application sought to be pressed by the appellant, an affidavit

has been filed by the counsel who had appeared for the present

respondents in the first appeal stating that in fact the said

application was not pressed before the ld. Lower Appellate Court.

In my opinion, even if that be so, the lower appellate

court would have to pass an order stating that the application

was dismissed not having been pressed.

In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of

justice if on this limited ground the appeal is allowed and the

matter is remanded back to the ld. Lower Appellate Court for

fresh decision after consideration of the application/s for

additional evidence. The judgment and decree of the courts

below are set aside.

Parties through counsel are directed to appear before

the District Judge, Jhajjar on 03.12.2009. Ld. District Judge is

requested to keep the appeal on his own board and decide the

same within a period of six months.

Since the main case has been decided, all the pending

civil miscellaneous applications if any, stand disposed of.

November 06, 2009                               (AJAY TEWARI)
sonia                                               JUDGE