NON-REPORTABLE
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
1.
Leave granted.
2.
In 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
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.
3.
That 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.
4.
The 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
consider the reasons for rejection of the
application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the
CPC given by the Appellate Court.
5.
The impugned order is, therefore, set aside.
The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated
above. There will be no order as to costs.
….………………………J.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE]
NEW DELHI:
…………………
……J.
JANUARY 12, 2009. [ H. L.
DATTU ]