RADHEY SHAM Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the verdict of the Appellate Authority deserves invalidation on account of the fact that the applications Annexure P/1 and P/3 filed by the petitioner (before the Appellate Authority) remained undisposed of.

(2.) That averment on facts is not contested by the learned Senior 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 Vs. Nirmal Singh,1993 2 PLR 375, Shadi Lal and others Vs. Municipal Committee, Rewari,1994 1 PLR 633, Sadhu Ram Verma Vs. Pawan Kumar,2006 2 RCR 95, Rajbir Singh Vs. Virender Singh and others,1996 1 PLR 703, Charan Singh and another Vs. Jagtar Singh and others,1999 1 PLR 719, and Jatinder Singh and another minor through mother Vs. Mehar Singh and others, 2008 11 JT 30 SC are supportive of that averment.

(3.) In the light of the facts noticed above, judgment dated 18.11.2009 shall stand set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Appellate Authority concerned for disposal afresh of the appeal after disposing of the applications aforementioned. If the amendment plea comes to be allowed on merits thereof, party opposite shall obviously have to be afforded an opportunity to rebut it.