NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5051-5052_    OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.21438-21439 OF 2009)

Rajinder Sharma  ..Appellant(s)

- Versus -

Arpana Sharma ..Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.These appeals are directed against the judgment  

and  order  dated  30.5.2009  passed  by  the  High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana.  

1

3.By  the  impugned  judgment,  the  learned  Single  

Judge of the High Court remitted the appeal to  

the trial Court with a direction to the trial  

Court to allow the respondent herein to adduce  

additional evidence and by giving corresponding  

right  to  the  appellant  herein  to  rebut  that  

evidence.

4.The facts of the case are rather peculiar.  

5.A petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage  

Act for annulment of the marriage was filed by  

the appellant stating therein that he developed  

friendly relationship with respondent as they had  

their business premises adjacent to each other.  

The case which has been made by the appellant is  

that respondent requested him to perform a mock  

marriage with her in order to enable her to avoid  

the predicament of marrying a boy who has been  

selected by her parents and who is not of her  

liking. The case of the appellant is that such a  

2

mock marriage took place in the presence of some  

relatives and some photographs were also taken.  

Thereafter,  the  marriage  of  appellant  with  

another  girl  was  fixed  but  that  could  not  be  

solemnized  as relations  from the  side of  that  

girl possibly came to know about the existence of  

the mock marriage.

6.It may be noted that respondent filed an FIR for  

commission of an offence under Section 420 IPC  

against the appellant.

7.Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition under  

Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for  

declaring the marriage as null and void.

8.The trial Court allowed the appellant’s petition  

for annulment of marriage. Challenging the same,  

respondent filed an appeal before the High Court  

and along with that she filed an application for  

3

adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule  

27 of CPC.

9.The  High  Court  instead  of  deciding  the  

controversy,  remitted  the  matter  to  the  trial  

Court and directed the trial Court to allow the  

application  of  the  respondent  for  adducing  

additional evidence by giving corresponding right  

to the appellant to rebut that evidence and also  

directed  the trial  Court to  decide the  matter  

afresh.

10.It appears that most of the documents which are  

sought to be adduced by way of adducing evidence  

are on record. In that view of the matter, the  

order to remit the matter to the trial Court is  

not warranted. The High Court, being the first  

appellate Court, is a Court of both fact and law.  

Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice  

for the High Court to decide the controversy in  

accordance with law.

4

11.In the facts of the case the order of remand  

will merely prolong the proceedings between the  

parties.

12.For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot sustain the  

order of the High Court, which is set aside. We  

request the High Court to decide the appeals in  

accordance with law and as early as possible and  

definitely by the end of year 2011.  

13.With these directions, the appeals are disposed  

of. There will no order as to costs.

.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi July 04, 2011

5

6