There is no reference and discussion by the High Court about those documents which were ignored by the Courts below.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 687-688 of 2013

ABDUL SUBAN SAB @ PYARE SAB (D)
BY LRS.& ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
CHIDANANDA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The appellants herein filed O.S. No.31/82 for
permanent injunction. The respondents filed
O.S.No.22/82 for declaration of title and permanent
injunction. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the
appellant and granted permanent injunction.
O.S.No.22/82 filed by the respondent was dismissed.
The common judgment in O.S.Nos.22/82 and 31/82 was
affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The contention
of the respondents that the suit schedule property was
not identifiable was rejected by the Trial Court. The
said finding was upheld by the First Appellate Court.
The High Court framed a substantial question of law
which is reproduced hereunder:

2
“1. Whether the lower courts
ignored to appreciate the documents in
proper perspective on behalf of the
plaintiff in O.S.No.22/82 and also
further committed an error with respect
to the identity of the suit property?”
The High Court reversed the order pertaining
to the identification of the property by upholding
that the property purchased by the respondent is
different from the property which is the suit schedule
property in O.S.No.31/82. The substantial question
of law framed is to the effect that the lower courts
failed to appreciate certain facts while deciding the
point pertaining to the identification of the
property. There is no reference and discussion by the
High Court about those documents which were ignored by
the Courts below. The High Court reversed the
findings of the First Appellant Court by re-
appreciating the evidence. We are also informed by
the learned counsel for the appellant that the counsel
for the appellant was not present when the matter was
heard by the High Court.
In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the
judgment of the High Court and remand the matter back
to the High Court for fresh consideration. We have
not expressed any view on the merits of the matter and

3
all points are left open to be considered by the High
Court.
As the suit was filed in the year 1982, we
request the High Court to decide the appeals at the
earliest.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

……………….. J
(L.NAGESWARA RAO )
……………….. J
( HEMANT GUPTA )
NEW DELHI;
06 th
August, 2019

4
ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).687-688/2013
ABDUL SUBAN SAB @ PYARE SAB (D) BY LRS. & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
CHIDANANDA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 06-08-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Anupam Lal Das,Sr.Adv.
Mr. B.Vishwanath Bhandarkar,Adv.
Mr. Karunakar Mahalik,Adv.
Mr. Sarbendra Kumar Adv.
Mr. N.K.Naik,Adv.
Mr. V.N.Raghupathy, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. N.D.B.Raju,Adv.
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR
Mr. Bharathi Raju,Adv.

      UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                         O R D E R

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the
signed order. Pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(B.Parvathi) (Sunil Kumar Rajvanshi)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)