Muzaffar Ali Vs.
Dasaram  INSC 40 (12 January 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.85 OF 2009 (Arising out
of SLP)No.6241 of 2008) Muzaffar Ali ...Appellant VERSUS Dasaram ...Respondent
our view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on a simple ground that
while deciding the Second Appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had not
considered a part of the order of the Appellate Court, by which the application
filed by the appellant before the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of the
Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. It is true that the First Appellate
Court, while 1 deciding the First Appeal, had given reasons for rejection of
the said application but the ground for such rejection was, as noted
hereinabove, not considered by the High Court.
being the position, we set aside the Judgment of the High Court and direct it
to decide the appeal afresh on merits and in accordance with law along with the
application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and the reasons given by the
First Appellate Court for its rejection.
High Court is now requested to decide the second appeal along with the
application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC on merits within a period of
three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order. While deciding
the same, the High Court shall also 2 consider the reasons for rejection of
the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC given by the Appellate Court.
impugned order is, therefore, set aside.
The appeal is allowed
to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
Pages: 1 2