NARINDER KUMAR Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties are ad idem that the impugned order dated July 30, 1992, is not sustainable as the matters between the parties have not been succinctly dealt with and decided.

(2.) IT is also agreed that the appeal which was remitted to the lower appellate Court against the order vide which leave to file the suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C. had been declined by the trial Court, has also been dismissed incorrectly vide order dated March 20, 1991. The question of law which had been raised in respect of the matter which has arisen, have not been dealt with and utter confusion has been created by virtue of passing of the aforesaid two orders. It is fairly admitted that the order dated March 20, 1991, has not been questioned by anyone but by virtue of the aforesaid order the appellant has been given the right to assail the order of the trial Court in appeal against the main judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which has now been decided by order dated July 30, 1992. It shall be apposite to note that the question relating to granting of leave to file the suit has not been touched nor any finding in respect thereof has been returned by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) HOWEVER , without expressing any opinion on merits viz -a -vis the pleas of the parties, I consider it appropriate that the present appeal deserves to be accepted and the matter requires to be remitted to the lower appellate court for a fresh decision. It shall also mean that the order dated March 20, 1991, shall also not come in the way of the lower appellate Court while deciding the appeal filed against the order of the trial Court vide which the leave to file the suit has been declined. It shall be appreciated, if the appeal against the order vide which leave to file the suit has been dealt with, is decided separately and a separate order is passed accordingly.