Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.
Lakshmidevi – Appellant
Versus
Siddarthakumar Bohra – Respondent
Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 75 of 2023 (RO)
Decided On : 31-08-2023
CIVIL PROCEDURE - APPEAL AND REMAND - Order XLIII Rule 1(u), Order VI Rule 17, Order XLI Rule 27, Section 151 of CPC - The court discussed the powers of the First Appellate Court under the CPC, emphasizing that it has the authority to amend pleadings, frame issues, and receive additional evidence. The court highlighted that remanding a case should be a rare occurrence and only when necessary for justice. The court found that the First Appellate Court's decision to remand the case was unsustainable and should be set aside, directing the appellate court to decide the matter on its merits instead.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction regarding a property measuring 28 guntas, which was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed, seeking to amend the plaint and introduce additional evidence due to subsequent developments. The First Appellate Court allowed these applications and remanded the case for fresh consideration, prompting the defendant to appeal against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the First Appellate Court had improperly remanded the case without sufficient justification. It emphasized that the appellate court has the power to decide cases on merits and should avoid remanding unless absolutely necessary. The court confirmed the orders allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint and directed the First Appellate Court to proceed with the case accordingly.
Issues: Whether the First Appellate Court acted within its jurisdiction in remanding the case to the trial court and whether the amendments to the plaint and additional evidence were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the First Appellate Court possesses extensive powers to amend pleadings and frame issues, and that remanding a case should be an exceptional measure. It underscored the importance of the appellate court resolving disputes efficiently to avoid unnecessary delays in the judicial process.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the remand order of the First Appellate Court was set aside, and the court directed the First Appellate Court to decide the case on its merits after allowing necessary amendments and additional evidence.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of CPC filed by the defendant challenging the judgment dtd. 28/3/2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura in R.A.No.31/2021 whereby the appeal is allowed and the matter has been remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.
2. For the sake of the convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction in O.S.No.291/2012. The trial Court by judgment and decree dtd. 29/9/2020 has been dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the regular appeal before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura in R.A.No.31/2021. Along with the appeal, he has filed I.A.No.II under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of CPC and I.A.No.III under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. The First Appellate Court by judgment dtd. 28/3/2023, has allowed both applications and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the matter has been remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has contended that I.A.No.II filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of CPC has been allowed without assigning any reasons and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint, by which the entire cause of action will be changed. He further contended that even while allowing I.A.No.III filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, the First Appellate Court has not given any reason. The judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is without any application of mind. He further contended that even the First Appellate Court has the power to frame additional issue and permit the parties to adduce additional evidence and decide the appeal on merit without remanding the matter to the trial Court. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SHANTHAVEERAPPA VS. K. N. JANARDHANACHARI reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1127. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has contended that by allowing I.A.No.II filed under VI Rule 17 of CPC, it will not change the nature of relief sought in the suit. Earlier, the plaintiff has sought for relief of declaration in respect of 28 guntas. Now it has been reduced to 3 guntas. Therefore, there is no any change in the boundaries. He further contended that during the pendency of the suit, there was subsequent development, the same has been produced by filing I.A.No.III under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. The First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the applications and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and decree.
7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction in respect of suit schedule property measuring 28 guntas. The trial Court by judgment and decree dtd. 29/9/2020 has dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the regular appeal in R.A.No.31/2021 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura. The plaintiff has filed I.A.No.II under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of plaint on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, some portion of the suit schedule property has been sold. Therefore, he wants to amend the plaint. He has also filed I.A.No.III under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional documents which are related to subsequent event. During the pendency of the suit, he has sold some portion of the property. The First Appellate Court considering the material available on record, has rightly allowed I.A.No.II and I.A.No.III.
8. This Court in the case of SHANTHAVEERAPPA VS. K. N. JANARDHANACHARI reported in ILR 2007 KAR 112
The First Appellate Court has the authority to amend pleadings, frame issues, and receive additional evidence, and should exercise its powers judiciously to avoid unnecessary remands, thereby promoti....
The appellate Court cannot set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remand the case without specific findings on the issues and without considering the findings given by the trial Cou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate court should not remit the case to the trial court if the evidence on record is sufficient to decide the matter, and it should i....
The appellate court should not remit the case to the trial court if the evidence on record is sufficient to decide the matter, and the decision to remand should be in accordance with the relevant pro....
The conscious application of mind and compliance with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC are essential for the appellate court's judgment, as emphasized by the legal principles established in t....
Amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC are strictly scrutinized, especially after trial commencement, and remands should only occur under justifiable circumstances, not routinely.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
