Daya Singh Vs. Bhano & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4607-08 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1334-35/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1334-35/2000)
Petitioner: Daya Singh
Respondent: Bhano & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4607-08 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1334-35/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1334-35/2000)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 16, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 100 – Second Appeal – High Court remanding matter to first Appellate Court as findings not given on different issues – Judgment of lower Appellate Court showing elaborate discussion on points raised and findings given. Held that High Court was in error. Orders set aside and judgments of courts below restored.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The plaintiff is in appeal against an order of the High Court in Second Appeal remanding the matter to the lower Appellate Court for reconsideration of the title appeal before it on a finding that the lower Appellate Court has not considered relevant issues and has not given findings on different issues.
3. In a suit for specific performance the trial court passed the decree. Against the said decree, the defendant
moved the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
4. On examining the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, we find that after elaborately discussing the pleadings of the parties, the lower Appellate Court focused its attention to the points urged before it and having negatived the points raised by the defendants, generally agreed with the other findings arrived at by the learned trial judge. We cannot hold the judgment of the lower Appellate Court to be one which can be said to be without discussion of the findings and without answering the question raised before the lower Appellate Court. In that view of the matter the High Court was in error in interfering with the said judgment in a Second Appeal and remanding the matter to the lower Appellate Court. We accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the judgment and decree of the learned trial judge as affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, is affirmed.
5. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. The plaintiff is in appeal against an order of the High Court in Second Appeal remanding the matter to the lower Appellate Court for reconsideration of the title appeal before it on a finding that the lower Appellate Court has not considered relevant issues and has not given findings on different issues.
3. In a suit for specific performance the trial court passed the decree. Against the said decree, the defendant
moved the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
4. On examining the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, we find that after elaborately discussing the pleadings of the parties, the lower Appellate Court focused its attention to the points urged before it and having negatived the points raised by the defendants, generally agreed with the other findings arrived at by the learned trial judge. We cannot hold the judgment of the lower Appellate Court to be one which can be said to be without discussion of the findings and without answering the question raised before the lower Appellate Court. In that view of the matter the High Court was in error in interfering with the said judgment in a Second Appeal and remanding the matter to the lower Appellate Court. We accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the judgment and decree of the learned trial judge as affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, is affirmed.
5. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
