SHAM LAL & SONS ETC Vs. RAJIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 C.P.C. remained undisposed of.

(2.) That averment on facts is not contested by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Caveator respondent.

(3.) 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 Vs. Nirmal Singh, 1993 104 PunLR 374, Shadi Lal and others Vs. Municipal Committee, Rewari, 1994 2 CivCC 358 , Sadhu Ram Verma Vs. Pawan Kumar, 2006 2 RCR(Rent) 95, Rajbir Singh Vs. Virender Singh and others, 1996 112 PunLR 703, Charan Singh and another Vs. Jagtar Singh and others, 1999 121 PunLR 719, and Jatinder Singh and another minor through mother Vs. Mehar Singh and others, 2009 1 CivCC 211 are supportive of that averment.