RISAL SINGH Vs. LACHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -defendant, Risal Singh, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Behror, District Alwar whereby the learned Magistrate had decreed the suit filed by the respondents -plaintiffs. He is also aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Behror Camp Bansoor, District Alwar whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant -defendant, and has upheld the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2004.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant had submitted two applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the first one on 26.5.2005 and the second one on 4.7.2005. The case was finally argued on 5.1.2012. It was brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are still pending which need to be decided. However, according to the learned counsel, without deciding the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the learned Judge pronounced his judgment on 6.1.2012. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Jatinder Singh & Anr. v. Balbir Singh & Anr. [AIR 2009 SC 354] and on the case of Malayalam Plantations Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Anr. [JT 2010 (12) SC 128] in order to buttress his contention that in case an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is not decided by the appellate court prior to passing the final judgment, the case should be remanded back to the appellate court for first deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and thereafter for pronouncing the judgment.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. A bare perusal of the order -sheet dated 26.5.2005 reveals that on the said date an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was, indeed, filed before the learned appellate court; a copy of the said application was given to the opposite counsel. Another application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed. Ever since then no order was passed by the learned Judge upon the said application. According to the order -sheet dated 5.1.2012, final arguments were heard; the case was posted for pronouncement of judgment on the next date. On 6.1.2012, the judgment was duly pronounced by the learned appellate court. Thus, obviously, from the date of filing of the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, no order had been passed with regard to the said applications.