Rachhpal Singh Vs. Sohan Singh - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Sep-24-1993 |
| Civil Appeal No. 5205 of 1993 |
| J.S. Verma,; B.P. Jeevan Reddy and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ. |
| 1994Supp(2)SCC544 |
| Code Of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 23 Rule 3, Section - 100 |
| Rachhpal Singh |
| Sohan Singh |
| Appeal Allowed |
| Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7531 of 1985 |
-
[ j.s. verma,; b.p. jeevan reddy and; s.p. bharucha, jj.] - civil procedure code, 1908 — section. 100 and order. 23, rule. 3 — appellant filing application under order. 23, rule. 3, placing reliance on a receipt alleged to have been executed by the opposite party — after enquiry by trial court, on the direction of high court, finding recorded that the said receipt was not genuine -- the high court affirmed that finding and rejected the receipt as forged and fabricated. consequently, the appeal is allowed. the high court's judgment, insofar as it relates to the dismissal of the second appeal, is set aside. the second appeal be now heard on merits and decided afresh by the high court......high court, a finding was recorded that the said receipt was not a genuine document. the high court affirmed that finding and rejected the receipt as forged and fabricated. it also directed prosecution of the appellant for the same. it is obvious that on that conclusion reached by the high court, after rejecting the application under order 23 rule 3 cpc, the second appeal had to be heard and decided on merits. however, that was not done and after rejecting the application under order 23 rule 3 cpc because it was based on a receipt found to be forged, the high court proceeded to dismiss the appeal itself without considering the merits of the appeal. this was an obvious error on account of which the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal in this manner has to be set aside.4. consequently, the appeal is allowed. the high court's judgment, insofar as it relates to the dismissal of the second appeal, is set aside. the second appeal be now heard on merits and decided afresh by the high court. no costs.
J.S. Verma,; B.P. Jeevan Reddy and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard on merits.
3. During the hearing of the second appeal in the High Court, the appellant made an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC placing reliance on a receipt dated March 28, 1977 alleged to have been executed by the opposite party. After inquiry conducted by the trial court on the direction of the High Court, a finding was recorded that the said receipt was not a genuine document. The High Court affirmed that finding and rejected the receipt as forged and fabricated. It also directed prosecution of the appellant for the same. It is obvious that on that conclusion reached by the High Court, after rejecting the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, the second appeal had to be heard and decided on merits. However, that was not done and after rejecting the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC because it was based on a receipt found to be forged, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal itself without considering the merits of the appeal. This was an obvious error on account of which the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal in this manner has to be set aside.
4. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The High Court's judgment, insofar as it relates to the dismissal of the second appeal, is set aside. The second appeal be now heard on merits and decided afresh by the High Court. No costs.