SURJEET SINGH vs SADHU SINGH
Party Details
- SURJEET SINGH
- SH GURDEV SINGH
- MOHINDER SINGH
- SURENDER SINGH
- SARVAN SINGH
- SMT MANJEET KAUR
- SMT KASHMIR KAUR
- SADHU SINGH
- SUNDER SINGH
- JAGDISH SINGH
- JHUNJHAR SINGH
- ZALAM SINGH
- JOGINDER SINGH
- PARDEEP SINGGH
- SMT. RANJEEV KAUR
- SMT PRAKASH KAUR
- SMT BALVINDER KAUR
- SMT RAJVANT KAUR
- SMT JEEVAN KAUR
- AMARJEET SINGH
- JARNAIL SINGH
- BALVINDER SINGH
- SHALINDER SINGH
- JEEVAN SINGH
- HARBANS SINGH
Case Summary
SURJEET SINGH and SH GURDEV SINGH filed Case No. C.A. No. 011764 - 011765 / 2018 in the Supreme Court of India on 13 Oct 2018 against SADHU SINGH and SUNDER SINGH. The case has undergone 2 hearings over 7 days. The case was disposed of on 26 Nov 2018. 3 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (2)
- 26NOV 2018Fixed Date by Court
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
Not taken up/ Not Today
- 19NOV 2018FRESH
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
Heard & Reserved [CAV]
Orders (3)
- 3DEC 2018judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 3DEC 2018orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 19NOV 2018orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1176411765 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.
2949729498 of 2018) Surjeet Singh & Anr.
Etc.
Etc. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Sadhu Singh & Ors. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T 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 1 Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.12.03 17:00:40 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 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.
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.
2 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 being a virtue, it must be observed as far as possible while expressing an opinion.
5.
The appeals stand dismissed in limine. ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] …...……..................................J. [INDU MALHOTRA] New Delhi; December 03, 2018 3