SURJEET SINGH & ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSADHU SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 1136
- Decided
- 3 December 2018
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order remanding the case to the first appellate court for fresh consideration is not open to interference and therefore dismissed the appeals.
Summary
The Supreme Court heard civil appeals filed by Surjeet Singh and others against Sadhu Singh and others, challenging a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that remanded the matter to the first appellate court for fresh consideration of the first appeal and cross‑objection. The appellants contended that the High Court's remand order was liable to be interfered with. The Court examined the record and held that the High Court merely exercised its power to remand the case for adjudication on merits, which does not invite Supreme Court interference. It further observed that the High Court's lengthy order was unnecessary and that brevity should be observed. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in limine, upholding the remand.
Issues considered
- What is the scope of Supreme Court's power to interfere with a High Court's order of remand to a lower appellate court?
Subjects
Judgment
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 991 991
SURJEET SINGH & ANR. ETC. ETC. 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
C
the case to the first Appellate Court to decide the first appeal and
cross objection afresh on merits in accordance with law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11764-
11765 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2018 of the High Court D
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CR Nos. 182 and 183 of 2015.
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 F
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 G
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.
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.
Ankit Gyan Appeals dismissed in limine.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.