Supreme Court of India
SURJEET SINGH & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus SADHU SINGH & ORS. on 3 December 2018
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 991
SURJEET SINGH & ANR. ETC. ETC.
v.
SADHU SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11764-11765 of 2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure – Order of remand – Interference in– Held: On perusal of the record of the case, no ground to interferein the impugned order because the High Court had only remandedthe case to the first Appellate Court to decide the first appeal andcross objection afresh on merits in accordance with law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11764-11765 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2018 of the High Courtof Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CR Nos. 182 and 183 of 2015.
R. K. Gautam and Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advs. for the appearingparties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orderdated 24.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh atShimla in C.R. No.182 of 2015 and C.R. No.183 of 2015 whereby theHigh Court allowed the revision petitions filed by the respondents herein.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and onperusal of the record of the case, we find no good ground to interfere inthe impugned order because we find that the High Court has onlyremanded the case to the first Appellate Court to decide the first appealand cross objection afresh on merits in accordance with law. An orderof remand, in our opinion, in the facts of this case, does not call for anyinterference. It is more so when in the opinion of the High Court a caseof remand was made out.
991
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A4. Before parting, we cannot resist observing that having rightlyformed an opinion to remand the case to the First Appellate Court, therewas no need for the High Court to devote 60 pages in writing the impugnedorder. In our view, it was not required. The examination could be confinedonly to the issue of remand and not beyond it. At the same time, therewas no need to cite several decisions and that too in detail. BrevityBbeing a virtue, it must be observed as far as possible while expressing anopinion.
5. The appeals stand dismissed in limine.
C
Ankit Gyan
Appeals dismissed in limine.
D
E
F
G
H