G. SHASHIKALA (DIED) THROUGH LRS. vs. G. KALAWATI BAI(DIED) THROUGH LR

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL  APPEAL Nos.3969­3970 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.30911­30912 of 2018) G. Shashikala (Died) Through L.Rs. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS G. Kalawati Bai(Died) Through  L.R. & Ors.              ….Respondent(s)                   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These   appeals   are   filed   against   a   common Signature Not Verified judgment   and   order   dated   26.09.2018   passed   by Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.04.16 16:51:39 IST Reason: the High Court of  Judicature at Hyderabad for the 1 State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in CCCA No.40 of 2002 and TRCCA No.168 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellants herein.  3. A f ew facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal   of   these   appeals,   which   involve   a   short point. 4. The   appellants   herein   are   the   legal representatives of the original defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs of the two suits being O.S. No. 1402 of 1992 and O.S. No.432 of 1993.  5.   One   suit   was   for   declaration   of   title   and delivery of possession of a major portion of the suit house   and   other   was   for   grant   of   perpetual injunction in relation to the suit house. 6. The   Trial   Court   by   judgment/decree   dated 21.01.2002   decreed   the   title   suit   and   passed   a decree   for   possession   but   dismissed   the   suit   for grant of perpetual injunction.  2 7. This led to filing of two first appeals in the High Court of A.P. During pendency of the appeals, the appellants (defendants) filed an application (IA No.5/2011) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and the respondents (plaintiffs) also filed an application (IA No.428/2011) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code.  8. By   these   two   applications,   parties   prayed permission   from   the   Appellate   Court   to   file additional evidence (documents) in support of their case.  9. By   order   dated   11.07.2016,   the   High   Court allowed the application filed by the respondents (IA No. 428/2011) and also admitted the documents in evidence   and   directed   that   the   impact   of   the additional   evidence   admitted   in   evidence   will   be examined while hearing the main appeal. So far as 3 IA No.5/2011 filed by the appellants is concerned, no order was passed. 10.   By impugned  order,  both  the  appeals  were dismissed by affirming the judgment/decree of the Trial Court, which has given rise to filing of the two appeals   in   this   Court   after   obtaining   the   special leave to appeal. 11. So   the   short   question,   which   arises   for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeals. 12. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow these appeals and while setting aside the impugned order, remand the case to the High Court for hearing the appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law. 13. In our considered opinion, the need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned for the reason that the High Court committed jurisdictional 4 error   while   deciding   the   application   filed   by   the respondents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code (428/2011) separately. 14. The question as to how the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27  of the Code in the appeal should be decided by the Appellate Court remains no more  res integra  and stands decided by the three decisions of this Court in   North Eastern Railway Administration,   Gorakhpur   vs.   Bhagwan Das(Dead) by L.Rs.,   (2008) 8 SCC 511(See paras 13­17),   Shalimar   Chemical   Works   Limited   vs. Surendra   Oil   &   Dal   Mills(Refineries)   &   Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 423 (See para 16) and  Corporation of Madras & Anr. vs. M. Parthasarathy & Ors.,  2018 (9) SCC 445 (See paras 11­15). 15. Unfortunately, the High Court while deciding the application (428/2011) filed by the respondents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code did not notice 5 the   law   laid   down   in   the   aforementioned   three decisions   and   proceeded   to   decide   the application/appeals   and   thus   committed   a jurisdictional error. 16. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   we   are unable to concur with the approach, reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned   order   calling   for   interference   by   this Court. 17. The appeals, therefore, deserve to be allowed and   are   accordingly   allowed.   The   interim   order dated 11.07.2016 by which the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code was allowed and the final order impugned herein are set aside. 18. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the two first appeals, out of which these appeals arise, afresh including the two applications filed by the parties to the appeals under Order 41 Rule   27   of   the   Code   on   their   respective   merits 6 keeping in  view the  law laid  down  in  the above­ mentioned three decisions insofar as it deals with disposal of the application of Order 41 Rule 27 of the   Code   and   decide   the   appeals   on   merits   in accordance   with   law   uninfluenced   by   any observations made in the impugned order and in this order.                                      .………...................................J.                                     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                            …...……..................................J.              [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; April 16, 2019 7