IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.333 of 1992 Date of decision : May 10, 2010 Anant Ram and others …Appellants. Versus Smt. Shakuntla and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Praneet Gupta and Ms Charu Gupta, Advocates. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This appeal challenges two decrees passed by the first Appellate court, one in Civil Appeal No.63 of 1990, filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, and the other in Civil Appeal No.62 of 1990, filed by the defendants-appellants. 2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration, with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as also mandatory injunction. Various issues were raised in the suit by the plaintiffs-respondents, as also the defendants-appellants. 3. Suit was dismissed, on account of findings on some of the issues. By the same judgment, trial Court gave findings on some other issues against the defendants. Plaintiffs filed appeal, challenging the decree of dismissal of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the suit. Defendants-appellants also filed an appeal, challenging the findings on some of the issues, though the final verdict was in their favour. 4. Learned first Appellate Court decided the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, vide judgment dated 28th August, 1992 and accepted the appeal. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Appeal field by the defendants-appellants was dismissed with the following order: “In view of the decision in the main appeal No.63/90 titled Smt. Shakuntla and others vs. Anant Ram and others, the appeal filed by Anant Ram and another stands dismissed. Be consigned to Record Room after its due completion.” 5. Defendants-appellants have filed the present appeal, challenging not only the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, but also the judgment of dismissal of their own appeal. 6. Both the appeals were admitted on certain substantial questions of law. 7. Following additional issue was framed, on 16th November, 2001, after allowing amendment of written statement: “16-A. Whether Smt. Chinti had a right of maintenance both under the Hindu Law and Customs and she was holding the estate of Babu Ram, Munshi Ram and Madan Lal as a limited owner in lieu of maintenance and has become the absolute owner thereof on coming into …3… force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if so, its effect? OPD” 8. Today, when the matter was being heard, it has been brought to my notice that two applications, for additional evidence, had been moved in the first Appellate Court. Learned first Appellate Court did not dispose of those applications, but did rely upon the evidence, which the plaintiffs-respondents wanted to adduce, as additional evidence, without affording an opportunity to the defendants-appellants to rebut that evidence. Also, I find that the learned first Appellate Court did not look into the grounds of appeal raised in the appeal filed by defendants- appellants, i.e. Civil Appeal No.62 of 1990, though in that appeal findings of the trial Court on as many as twelve issues had been assailed. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submits that appeal filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was not maintainable, as the suit had been dismissed. May be that the appeal was not competent, but defendants-appellants could have filed cross-objections and, therefore, appeal filed by them was required to be treated as cross-objections and a reasoned judgment was required to be delivered by the first Appellate Court qua those cross-objections. 10. In view of the abovestated position, judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, under appeal, are …4… set aside and both the cases are remanded to the said Court for deciding the same afresh. 11. Before proceeding to dispose of the appeal of the plaintiffs-respondents and the appeal (to be treated as cross-objections) of the defendants-appellants, the first appellate Court shall first deal with the two applications for additional evidence moved by both the parties. The first Appellate Court shall also decide additional issue No.16-A, framed by this court, which is to the following effect, after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on this additional issue, if so desired: “16-A. Whether Smt. Chinti had a right of maintenance both under the Hindu Law and Customs and she was holding the estate of Babu Ram, Munshi Ram and Madan Lal as a limited owner in lieu of maintenance and has become the absolute owner thereof on coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if so, its effect? OPD” First Appellate Court shall endeavour to dispose of the cases as early as possible and in any case before 31st December, 2010. Parties are directed to appear before the first Appellate Court on 27th May, 2010. May 10, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J