The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of remand should not be exercised routinely and should only be used when a re-trial is considered necessary, in accordance with the relevant provisions and established principles governing the power of remand.

JUDGMENT :—

ADMIT. Heard finally by consent of both the parties.

2. The Appellant herein has filed this appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure to assail the judgment and decree dated 4-1-2018 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Achalpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, learned District Judge set aside the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division in Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 1994 and remanded the matter to the trial Court with direction to decide the issue of limitation and to decide entire suit afresh by giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if they so desire.

3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant herein shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the Plaintiff’ and the Respondents shall be referred to as ‘the Defendants’. Appeal against Order No. 16 of 2018 decided on 8-3-2021. (Nagpur)

4. The Defendants entrusted to the Plaintiff, who is an Engineer and registered Contractor, the construction of Cottage Hospital at Achalpur. The Plaintiff claimed that he had completed the construction by end of July, 1990. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants had withheld the payment without any justifiable reasons. The Plaintiff therefore filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,27,421/-, as per the claim specified in paragraph 6 of the Plaint.

5. The Defendants denied that it is liable to pay any money to the Plaintiff. The Defendants claimed that there was delay in construction of the work and claimed that they were not responsible for the delay. The Defendants further stated that the payment was withheld for recovery of outstanding dues.

6. Upon considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court partly decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 21-6-2002 and directed the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff an amount of Rs.4,12,306/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

7. The Defendants challenged the said judgment in First Appeal No. 675 of 2002. By judgment dated 15-12-2010, this Court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the matter to the trial Court for deciding the suit afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to tender their arguments.

8. Pursuant to the order of remand, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, heard the matter afresh and by judgment and order dated 28-8-2011, partly decreed the suit and directed the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,786/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date of the suit till realization. Learned Judge also directed the Defendants to pay interest on certain other amount specified in Clause 3 to 7 of the impugned judgment.

9. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the Plaintiff filed an appeal before this Court, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Achalpur in view of change in pecuniary jurisdiction.

10. Learned District Judge has disposed of the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 4-1-2018. Learned District Judge observed that the trial Court had not framed issues in respect of each of claim raised by the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, learned District Judge held that since both the parties had led evidence, the Appellate Court can frame necessary points and decide the appeal on merits. Having thus observed, learned District Judge proceeded to record a finding that though the Defendants had not raised a plea of limitation, it was for the Court to satisfy itself that the suit claim is within limitation. Learned District Judge, therefore, felt it necessary to frame the issue on the point of limitation and to give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the said issue. With these findings, the District Judge framed an issue on the point of limitation and remanded the matter to the trial Court with direction to decide the entire suit afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if they so desire. This judgment is under challenge in the present Appeal.

11. Before adv