NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.85 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP©No.6241 of 2008)

Muzaffar Ali            …Appellant

VERSUS

Dasaram             …Respondent

� � � � � � � � �

1. Leave granted.

2. In our view, the impugned order is liable to be

set  aside  on  a  simple  ground  that  while

deciding the Second Appeal, the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh had not considered a part of

the order of the Appellate Court, by which the

application filed by the appellant  before  the

Appellate  Court  under  Order  41 Rule  27  of

the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.  It is

true  that  the  First  Appellate  Court,  while

1

deciding the First Appeal, had given reasons

for  rejection  of  the  said  application but  the

ground  for  such  rejection  was,  as  noted

hereinabove,  not  considered  by  the  High

Court.   

3. That  being  the  position,  we  set  aside  the

Judgment of the High Court and direct it to

decide  the  appeal  afresh  on  merits  and  in

accordance  with  law  along  with  the

application  under  Order  41  Rule  27  of  the

CPC  and  the  reasons  given  by  the  First

Appellate Court for its rejection.   

4. The  High  Court  is  now requested  to  decide

the second appeal along with the application

under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC on merits

within a period of three months from the date

of  supply  of  a  copy  of  this  order.   While

deciding the same, the High Court shall also

2

consider  the  reasons  for  rejection  of  the

application  under  Order  41  Rule  27  of  the

CPC given by the Appellate Court.   

5. The impugned order  is,  therefore,  set  aside.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

above. There will be no order as to costs.   

….………………………J.   [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

NEW DELHI:                                       ………………… ……J. JANUARY 12, 2009.                                            [ H. L. DATTU ]   

3