1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5831-5832 OF 2023 (Arising from SLP(C) Nos. 8372-8373/2022 SURINDER MOHAN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BHARAT KUMAR RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted. 2. These appeal(s) assail the correctness of judgment and Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21.12.2021 whereby both the Second Appeals from Order Nos.106 and 107 of 2018 were dismissed and the order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court to the Trial Court to decide the suit afresh excluding the additional evidence of the plaintiff led along with the expert evidence, permitted by the High Court. 3. In brief, relevant facts are that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. The plaintiff had sought permission to lead expert evidence in order to prove secondary evidence of an agreement to sell. 4. The Trial Court declined the request whereupon the matter went to the High Court by way of Civil Revision No.1987 of 2006. The same was allowed by order dated 06.04.2006 and the plaintiff was granted one
2 opportunity to examine the expert witness at his own responsibility, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. 5. Pursuant thereto the Trial Court proceeded to take the evidence as per the direction of the High Court. 6. On 11.05.2006, an order was passed by which it was recorded that costs of Rs.2,000/- was paid and the expert witness Harbax Mandar filed an affidavit in evidence along with a further affidavit of the plaintiff, Surinder Mohan Garg. Both the affidavits were supplied to the counsel for the defendants and the proceedings were adjourned for 21.07.2006 for cross- examination of both the witnesses. 7. The defendant did not take any objection to the affidavit filed by the plaintiff along with the affidavit of the expert witness and proceeded to cross- examine both the witnesses. The defendant further participated in the proceedings before the Trial Court and also made submissions at the stage of final arguments. It allowed the Trial Court to decide the suit. The Trial Court proceeded to partly decree the suit. 8. Both the parties preferred appeal(s) before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court was very disturbed with the fact that, although, the plaintiff had taken permission to lead expert evidence
3 only, but had led his own evidence also without there being any order to that effect. It sharply commented on the Trial Court as well as the plaintiff and his lawyer also for this conduct. 9. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal(s) and remanded the matters to the Trial Court for a fresh decision on the material on record excluding the affidavit filed by the plaintiff and the cross- examination conducted by the defendant of the plaintiff after liberty was granted by the High Court in the Civil Revision for leading evidence of the expert witness. 10. Aggrieved by the said order of the First Appellate Court, the present appellant approached the High Court by way of two Second Appeals for Orders, which have since been dismissed. Aggrieved therefrom, the present appeal(s) were filed. 11. It is true that the High Court had granted liberty to the appellant to lead evidence of the expert witness. However, once the plaintiff had led the affidavit of the expert witness as also his own affidavit which had been accepted not only by the Trial Court but also by the defendant. The defendant having not taken any objection to the same before the Trial Court and having further proceeded to cross-examine not only the expert but also the plaintiff and continued to participate in the proceedings before the Trial Court
4 and allowed it to finally decide the suit. In view of the above, we are of the view that the evidence having been duly led before the Trial Court and not objected by the defendant, there is no reason to discard or exclude the evidence placed on record. 12 In that view of the matter, we set aside the orders of the High Court as also that of the Appellate Court remanding the matter to the Trial Court. 13. We further remand the matter to the First Appellate Court to decide the same on merits without excluding the affidavit of the plaintiff and cross- examination conducted by the defendant. 14. As the suit is of the year 2001, we direct the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal(s) expeditiously on its own merits. 15. It goes without saying that parties shall extend all cooperation in the hearing of the appeal(s). 16. The appeal(s) and pending applications are disposed of in the above terms. ....................,J. (VIKRAM NATH) ....................,J. (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH) NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 12, 2023.
5 ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8372-8373/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-12-2021 in SAO No. 106/2018 21-12-2021 in SAO No. 107/2018 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) SURINDER MOHAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS BHARAT KUMAR Respondent(s) (IA No.67625/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND IA No. 68395/2022- PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ ANNEXURES) Date : 12-09-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dinesh Kothari, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Kumar Kartikay, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal(s) and pending applications are disposed of in terms of the signed order. (NEETU KHAJURIA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS (RANJANA SHAILEY) COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file.)
6
ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8372-8373/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-12-2021 in SAO No. 106/2018 and SAO No. 107/2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) SURINDER MOHAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS BHARAT KUMAR Respondent(s) (IA No. 67625/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 68395/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 01-08-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dinesh Kothari, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Kumar Kartikay, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. List these matters on 12.09.2023. (NEETU KHAJURIA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS (RANJANA SHAILEY) COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.41 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IV-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. PAVANESH D. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8372-8373/2022 SURINDER MOHAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS BHARAT KUMAR Respondent(s) Date : 22-03-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dinesh Kothari,Adv. Ms. Namrata Biyawai,Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks time, is granted to the sole respondent, to file counter affidavit. Thereafter, the matter be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. PAVANESH D. Registrar MG
ITEM NO.58 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IV-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. PAVANESH D. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8372-8373/2022 SURINDER MOHAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS BHARAT KUMAR Respondent(s) Date : 06-02-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Jain,Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dinesh Kothari,Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh Chauhan,Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel,AOR UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the Court made the following O R D E R As per office report, notice issued to sole Respondent has been received back with endorsement “addressee left without instructions”. At this stage, Mr. Dinesh Kothari, Ld. Advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Mr. Deepak Goel, Ld. Advocate-on-Record for sole respondent. He seeks and is granted two weeks time to file vakalatnama and four weeks time to file counter affidavit. L earned counsel for petitioner is directed to provide the soft copies of the pleadings to the learned counsel for the sole respondent. List again on 22.3.2023. PAVANESH D. Registrar MG
1 ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.8 SECTION IV-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8372-8373/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-12-2021 in SAO No. 106/2018 21-12-2021 in SAO No. 107/2018 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) SURINDER MOHAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS BHARAT KUMAR Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.67625/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.68395/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 18-08-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Jain, Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner filed his affidavit in evidence on 11.05.2006 in the presence of the counsel appearing for the defendant when costs were also paid and accepted. Therefore, the respondent waived leading of evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner in the suit after his evidence was closed at an earlier stage. The First Appellate Court has erred in law in remanding the matter for the reason that the petitioner was only permitted to lead expert evidence by the High Court.
2 Issue notice. Until further orders, further proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) ASST-REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.11 SECTION IV-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8372-8373/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-12-2021 in SAO No. 106/2018 21-12-2021 in SAO No. 107/2018 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) SURINDER MOHAN PETITIONER(S) VERSUS BHARAT KUMAR RESPONDENT(S) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.67625/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.68395/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ) Date : 20-05-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 18.08.2022. (POOJA SHARMA) (BEENA JOLLY) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)