RSA No.65 of 2002 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. (1) RSA No.65 of 2002 Date of decision: 20.02.2008. Nachhattar Singh and another ... Appellants Versus Phulki Ram ... Respondent (2) RSA No.66 of 2002 Date of decision: 20.02.2008 Nachhattar Singh and another ... Appellants Versus Phulki Ram ... Respondent Present: Ms.Bindu Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.PS Khurana, Advocate,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties at length. The appellants herein filed Civil Suit No.661 of 1994 for possession on the basis of title having been acquired vide two sale deeds dated 10.06.1983 (registered on 20.02.1984) and 05.03.1993 against the defendants named therein. Another suit being Civil Suit No.310 of 1994 came to be filed by defendant Phulki Ram, seeking specific performance on the strength of the agreement to sell dated 02.05.1989. Civil Suit No.661 of 1994 filed by the present appellants was dismissed whereas Civil Suit No.310 of 1994 filed by defendant Phulki Ram was decreed by a common judgment dated 29.11.1999, in view of the consolidation of the suits, by RSA No.65 of 2002 -2- Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala. The present appellants filed two separate appeals one relating to Civil Suit No.661 of 1994 and the other relating to Civil Suit No.310 of 1994, registered as Civil Appeal Nos.17 and 18 of 2000, before the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. The learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, has disposed of both the Civil Appeals vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.07.2001, dismissing both the appeals filed by the present appellants (plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.661 of 1994). When this case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Lower Appellate Court has failed to consider the appeal preferred by the appellants in respect to Civil Suit No.661 of 1994 and the entire emphasis has been laid on the appeal arising out of Civil Suit No.310 of 1994. I have perused the impugned judgment. Though a reference is made to Civil Suit No.661 of 1994, however, while deciding the appeals vide the impugned judgment, no discussion or even reference to the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal arising out of Civil Suit No.661 of 1994, has been made, although both the appeals have been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree. The main grievance of the appellants is that the appeal arising out of Civil Suit No.661 of 1994 has not been effectively considered at all. The appellants have also challenged the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court as far Civil Suit No.310 of 1994 is concerned i.e. Civil Appeal No.18 of 2000. RSA No.65 of 2002 -3- In view of the above position and without going into the merits of the present appeals, I am inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and decree with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and I direct the remand of the cases to the learned Lower Appellate Court for afresh decision on both the appeals by taking into consideration the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal filed by the present appellants in both the Civil Appeals i.e. Civil Appeal No.17 of 2000 and Civil Appeal No.18 of 2000. I have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the impugned judgment to enable the learned Lower Appellate Court to formulate its fresh opinion on the basis of the material/evidence on record in both the appeals. The learned Lower Appellate Court is directed to consider both the appeals mentioned above on merits and decide the same within a period of six months from today. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Lower Appellate Court on 26.03.2008. 20.02.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO