IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA 412 of 1999 Date of Decision 17th May ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Saputra Devi & another ….Appellants. Versus Bimla Devi (died) through LRs & others ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) This is the defendants’ appeal against the judgment of the two Courts below granting an injunction to the plaintiffs over the suit land which, according to the learned Courts below, is joint between the co-owners. 2. A number of questions of law have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, which require determination by this Court. Primary amongst those is that the land is not capable of being partitioned for the reason that such proceedings have in fact been determined by the Tehsildar. To 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 support this contention, the appellant filed documents by way of additional evidence before the learned District Judge which were taken on record and to which no counter was filed by the respondent. Learned counsel points out that it was incumbent upon the learned Appellate Court to discuss the impact of additional evidence produced by the appellant, in detail, to ascertain its effect on the suit. There is no dispute with the proposition that the first Appellate Court is duty bound to discuss each and every point as raised before that Court. I do not find from the judgment that there has been any discussion on the evidence produced by the appellant herein under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things if the case is remanded to the learned District Judge for decision afresh in accordance with law. The learned Court shall duly discuss/appreciate the evidence which has been brought on record of the case under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Parties to appear before the learned District Judge, Solan on 30th June, 2011. Record of the Courts below be sent back forthwith. 3. I have not expressed my opinion on any of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the respective merits of their claims. May 17th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 3