Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeals dismissed in limine.

A v. SADHU SINGH & ORS.

Case / Petition Number:11764-11765 of 2018
Neutral Citation:[2018] 14 S.C.R. 991

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Abhay Manohar Sapre
  • Indu Malhotra
Judgment Date
2018-12-03
Court Decision / Holding
Appeals dismissed in limine.
Final Disposition
Appeals dismissed in limine.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • A

Respondents

  • Sadhu Singh and others

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Civil Appeals challenge a High Court remand order in a Himachal Pradesh matter. The High Court had remanded the case to the First Appellate Court to decide the first appeal and cross-objections afresh on merits in accordance with law. On perusal of the record, the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned order, holding that remand was appropriate and warranted in the circumstances. It noted that the High Court correctly directed that the First Appellate Court decide the appeal and cross-objections on merits, rather than venturing into detailed adjudication at the remand stage. The Court criticized the length of the High Court’s reasoning, remarking that brevity would have sufficed to address the remand issue and that citing numerous authorities at length was unnecessary. Ultimately, the appeals are dismissed in limine, indicating that no further adjudication on merits is needed by the Supreme Court. The decision underscores judicial efficiency and the proper scope of remand, preserving the First Appellate Court’s jurisdiction to evaluate the substantive issues on merits in line with law.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Not stated in the provided excerpt.

Contentions of Respondents

Not stated in the provided excerpt.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against A v. SADHU SINGH & ORS. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

991 [2018] 14 S.C.R. 991 **==> picture [180 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** A v. SADHU SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 11764-11765 of 2018) DECEMBER 03, 2018 B ## **[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 interfere in the impugned order because the High Court had only remanded the case to the first Appellate Court to decide the first appeal and cross objection afresh on merits in accordance with law._ C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1176411765 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2018 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CR Nos. 182 and 183 of 2015. D R. K. Gautam and Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E ## **ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.** 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.R. No.182 of 2015 and C.R. No.183 of 2015 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petitions filed by the respondents herein. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no good ground to interfere in the impugned order because we find that the High Court has only remanded the case to the first Appellate Court to decide the first appeal and cross objection afresh on merits in accordance with law. An order of remand, in our opinion, in the facts of this case, does not call for any interference. It is more so when in the opinion of the High Court a case of remand was made out. F G H 9917 992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R. - A 4. Before parting, we cannot resist observing that having rightly formed an opinion to remand the case to the First Appellate Court, there was no need for the High Court to devote 60 pages in writing the impugned order. In our view, it was not required. The examination could be confined only to the issue of remand and not beyond it. At the same time, there was no need to cite several decisions and that too in detail. Brevity - B being a virtue, it must be observed as far as possible while expressing an opinion. 5. The appeals stand dismissed in _limine_ . C Ankit Gyan Appeals dismissed in limine. D E F G H