RSA No.2002 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2002 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 18-8-2009 Chet Ram and others ....Appellants VERSUS Bhaiya Ram ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate, for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The appellants challenge the judgments and decrees dated 15-6-2007 and 19-4-2008, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gohana and the Distt. Judge, Sonepat decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent and dismissing their appeal. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering in his possession over plot No.33/34 situated in the abadi deh of village Ahmadpur Majra. The trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent, whereas the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Counsel for the appellants submits that while deciding their appeal, the first appellate court did not decide their application for RSA No.2002 of 2008 (O&M) -2- additional evidence despite issuing notice to the respondents. The failure of the first appellate court to decide the application discloses an error of jurisdiction and raises a substantial question of law that would merit acceptance of the appeal. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellants did not press the application for additional evidence and therefore cannot now urge that the judgment passed by the first appellate court is incorrect. It is submitted that in this view of the matter, the appeal be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. By interim orders dated 17-7-2007 and 26-7- 2007 the first appellate court issued notice in the application for additional evidence. It is not denied by counsel for the respondent that this application has not been decided. While deciding an appeal, a court is expected to decide all applications whatever be their nature. In case, an application is not pressed an order should be recorded to that effect. As the first appellate court did not decide the application for additional evidence filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the question of law framed by counsel for the appellants would have to be answered by holding that the first appellate court committed an error of jurisdiction. In view of the what has been stated hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Sonepat is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the District Judge, Sonepat to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law along with the application for additional evidence. RSA No.2002 of 2008 (O&M) -3- Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Sonepat on 12-10-2009. (RAJIVE BHALLA) 18-08-2009 JUDGE manju