IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 133 RSA-1335-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 09.04.2026 Shamsher Singh …..Appellant Vs. Bachani Devi (deceased) thr LRs and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants-appellants against the judgment & decree dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Addi)onal District Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal filed by the plain)ffs was allowed, the judgment of the trial Court dated 16.09.2019 was set aside, and the ma1er was remanded to the trial Court for passing a final decree in accordance with law. 2. The brief factual matrix, necessary for adjudica)on of the present appeal, is that the original suit ins)tuted by the plain)ffs for dissolu)on of partnership firm, rendi)on of accounts and possession of the shop in ques)on came to be decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2009, whereby a preliminary decree was passed. The said decree a1ained finality up to this Court, as the first appeal before first appellate court, and Regular Second Appeal preferred there-against before this court was dismissed. Therea4er, proceedings were ini)ated for passing of the final decree. 3. The trial Court, however, while dealing with the applica)on for passing of final decree, dismissed the same vide judgment dated NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1335-2026 (O&M) 16.09.2019, primarily on the ground that the par)es had failed to produce and prove the accounts. 4. Aggrieved against the said dismissal, the plain)ffs preferred an appeal, which has been allowed by the learned first appellate Court. The appellate Court, upon apprecia)on of the record, held that the trial Court had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under law for passing of final decree and had erroneously reopened issues, which had already a1ained finality by virtue of the preliminary decree. Consequently, the ma1er was remanded to the trial Court for passing of final decree in accordance with law. 5. Assailing the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the first appellate Court has erred in interfering with the well-reasoned findings of the trial Court and that the plain)ffs having failed to prove the accounts were not en)tled to a final decree. It is further contended that the appellate Court has wrongly remanded the ma1er without there being any jus)fica)on. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in a Regular Second Appeal under Sec)on 100 CPC is confined to substan)al ques)ons of law. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence or se1led legal principles. 8. A perusal of the record reveals that the rights of the par)es stood conclusively determined by the preliminary decree dated 12.09.2009, which has a1ained finality up to this Court. Once such decree had a1ained finality, the scope of proceedings therea4er was limited only to working out the rights of the par)es by way of passing of a final decree. 9. The learned first appellate Court has rightly observed that the trial Court, while deciding the applica)on for final decree, commi1ed a patent illegality in re-examining the issues, which had already been se1led Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1335-2026 (O&M) and in dismissing the applica)on on the ground of non-produc)on of accounts. The approach adopted by the trial Court was contrary to the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure governing preliminary and final decrees. In proceedings for final decree in a suit for rendi)on of accounts, the Court is required to take steps for ascertainment of accounts, which may include appointment of a Local Commissioner or adop)ng any other appropriate procedure as contemplated under law. The dismissal of the applica)on on the ground that accounts were not produced, without adop)ng the statutory mechanism, was clearly unsustainable. 10. The first appellate Court, therefore, rightly set aside the judgment of the trial Court and remanded the ma1er for passing of final decree a4er following due procedure. The said finding is based on correct apprecia)on of the legal posi)on and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. 11. The conten)on raised by the appellants, in essence, seeks re- apprecia)on of factual aspects and re-agita)on of issues already se1led by the preliminary decree, which is impermissible in second appeal. No substan)al ques)on of law arises from the impugned judgment warran)ng interference by this Court. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court are upheld. 13. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. All the miscellaneous applica)on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 09, 2026 Nee)ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document