Sumer Chand Vs. Mewa
Ram & Ors.  INSC 2092 (4 December 2008)
SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No(s).13933/2007 (From the judgement and order dated 28/10/2006 in SAO No.
5/1994 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) SUMER CHAND
Petitioner(s) VERSUS MEWA RAM & ORS. Respondent(s) Date: 04/12/2008 This
Petition was called on for hearing today.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.
SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr.Jasbir Singh
Mr. Praveen Lata,
Mr. S.C.Verma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.
Sachin Jain, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel
the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted.
The appeal is
dismissed in terms of the signed order. No costs.
[ Meenu Sethi ] [
Pushap Lata Bhardwaj ] A.R.-cum -P.S. Court Master Signed order is placed on
the file IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 7112 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.13933/2007) Sumer Chand
...Appellant Versus Mewa Ram & Ors. ...Respondents O R D E R Leave granted.
Defendant in a suit
for redemption of mortgage is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order dated 28.10.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in S.A.No. 5 of 1994 dismissing
the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment and order dated
13.1.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra remanding the
matter back to the trial Court for fresh decision permitting the parties to
lead more evidence on a joint request made by the learned counsel for the
were the purchaser of the land in suit by reason of registered deed of sale
dated 22.5.1973 from one Babu Ram. Babu Ram had executed a deed of mortgage in
favour of the appellant herein by a registered deed of mortgage dated 16.6.1970.
-1- A suit for
redemption of mortgage was filed by the respondents herein on 18.3.1987.
However, according to the respondents a mistake occurred in regard to the area
of the mortgaged property vis-a-vis the suit land.
Keeping in view the
aforementioned mistake which had occurred in furnishing proper description of
the property in suit, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit opining:
record on the file does not show that the agricultural land comprised in Khasra
No.60/25/2 and 73/4/2 was ever changed as Khasra Nos. 60/25/25/2 or 73/4/2/4,
after close perusal of the entire evidence on the file, I came to the
conclusion that the plaintiffs have prayed in this case for redemption of only
13 kanals 12 marlas of land out of the total land measuring 21 kanals 4 marlas,
allotted in lieu of the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint."
An appeal was
preferred there against before the Appellate Court. An application for
amendment of the plaint in terms of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure was also filed which was allowed. Appellant was also permitted to
file additional written statement.
In view of the
aforementioned subsequent events, the learned counsel for the parties jointly
agreed that in view of the amended pleadings, additional issues were -2-
required to be framed and in that view of the matter, the matter was remanded
back to the trial Court by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra
by an order dated 13.1.1994 directing:
" 2. Heard, the
judgment and decree of the learned Lower Court of 1.6.1990 is set aside.The
case is remanded to the learned Lower Court for rendering the decision afresh
after receiving more evidence of the parties if necessary particularly in the
light of the additional issues framed by this Court vide order dated
23.12.1993.A copy of the order dated 23.12.1993 be also sent to the learned
Lower Court in this regard. There is an application of the respondents for
framing further additional issues and for permission to lead the evidence. The
application be also sent to the learned Lower Court which would decide in this
application before proceeding further in the matter.
However, the learned
Lower Court would decide the matter within three months from today. Not more
than two opportunities to each of the party in case of necessity of evidence to
be led by the parties would be given to them. The file be sent to the learned
Lower Court today forthwith. Appeal file be consigned."
It was that order
which was the subject matter of the second appeal before the High Court.
appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that without any instructions
from the appellant, the learned advocate did not have the requisite authority
to request for remand of the matter back to the trial Court.
The question raised
by the learned counsel for the appellant is squarely covered by a judgment of
this Court in Employees in relation to Monoharbahal categorically held that
even a counsel who had filed a Vakalatnama has the requisite authority even to
enter into a compromise.
-3- Even otherwise,
when the pleadings were amended and additional issues are framed, the Appellate
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 23 A of the Code of
Civil Procedure was entitled to pass the impugned judgment for the retrial of
aforementioned observations and directions, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[ CYRIAC JOSEPH ]