Back
2013 Supreme(Chh) 296
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
ANISH FULARA
GHANSHYAM AGRAWAL & ANOTHER – Appellant
Vs.
DEVCHARAN – Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 30 & 31 of 2013
Decided on: 23-10-2013
Advocate appeared:
Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate, for the Appellants/defendants.
Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate, for the Respondent/plaintiff.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 and 43 – Rule 1, 23 and 27 – Section 151 and 107 – Specific Relief Act – Section 16 – Civil Suits – Entirely Discretionary – Legality and Validity – Respondent/plaintiff herein filed a civil suit for declaration of his title possession and for arrears of rent pleading inter alia that appellant/defendant tenant of late sole owner of property described in Schedule annexed to plaint let-out to him on monthly rent and further pleaded that appellant/defendant failed to pay rent and late has executed a which is duly registered in favour of respondent/plaintiff and he has acquired right and title on said property by way of will and claimed decree for declaration and possession – Held, Decree passed in Civil Appeal First Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh are hereby set-aside – Both aforesaid appeals are restored to original file of said Court – Appellate Court shall hear both civil appeals and while hearing, if it feels that respondent/plaintiff has made out a case for reception of additional evidence after rendering a specific finding it shall record evidence and mark documents and shall thereafter considering judgment and decree of trial court dispose of appeals one way or other application also restored to its original number for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law – Neither it has been held that for purpose of pronouncing judgment fresh opportunity of adducing evidence is required to be granted to the respondent/plaintiff nor it has been held when evidence has been taken by First Appellate Court so imperfectly that Appellate Court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment and same comes within the meaning of for any substantial cause as provided – Case Remanded.
1. This judgment shall also govern disposal of M.A. No. 31/2013 as the question of law involved in these appeals are one and the same.
2. The substantial question of law which requires to be considered and decided in these appeals is whether the First Appellate Court is justified in directing wholesale remand in exercise of its power under. Order 41 Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as 'CPC') without reversing the decree passed by the trial Court and without holding that the retrial is necessary?
3. Questioning the legality and validity of judgment and decree dated 08.03.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 113-A/2012 (Devcharan V. Anish Fulara) and Civil Appeal No. 83-A/2012 (Devcharan v. Ghanshyam Agrawal & another) by the First Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, the appellants/defendants have preferred these appeals under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC.
4. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal tiled by the respondent/plaintiff; and while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 12.10.2009 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Saraipali in Civil Suit No. 6-A/2006, remanded the case to the trial Court for deciding the suit afresh on merits by giving following directions:
^^mHk; i{k ds }kjk izLrqr U;k; n`”Vkarksa dk euu fd;k x;kA fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk ifjr fu.kZ; fnukad 12&10&2009 ds vuqlkj oknxzLr Hkwfe dks e`rd I;kjsyky dk gksuk ik;k x;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh fu”d”kZ fn;k x;k gS fd mDr edku esa izfrvihykFkhZ fdjk;snkj gSA bu nksuksa fcUnq ij izfrvihykFkhZ@izfroknh dh vksj ls dzkl vkCtsD’ku is’k ugha fd;k x;k gSA oknh us LoŒ I;kjsyky ds olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij Loa; dk LoRo gksuk crk;k gS] ftl laca/k esa okn iz’u cuk;s x;s gSA ijUrq mldk fu”d”kZ ^^izekf.kr ugha** esa fn;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknxzLr LFky ds LokfeRo ds laca/k esa fof/kd fLFkfr vLiLV cukrh gS] ftls LiLV djuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fy, vko’;d FkkA oknh@vihykFkhZ us fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k vafre rdZ ds LVst esa iqu% lk{; is’k djus dk volj dh ekax dh Fkh] ftls fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vLohdkj dj fn;kA vihy esa vkns’k 41 fu;e 27 O;-iz-la- dk vkosnu is’k dj iqu% mDr fuosnu dks nksgjk;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fu.kZ; ds i’pkr~ ysD;wuk dh iwfrZ gsrq vkosnu is’k djuk ugha ik;k x;kA izkjaHk Lrj ij gh oknh@vihykFkhZ }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k olh;rukek dks izekf.kr djus ds fy, lk{; gsrq volj fn;s tkus dh ekax dh tkrh jgh gSA ,slh n’kk esa tcfd fu.kZ; esa Hkh LoRo dh oS/kkfud fLFkfr Li”V ugha gS] olh;rukek dks izekf.kr djus ds fy, rFkk LoRo dh fLFkfr Li”V djus ds fy, lk{; gsrq volj fn;k tkuk vko’;d izrhr gksrk gSA izfrvihykFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr U;k; n`”Vkarksa esa bl izdkj dh ifjfLFkfr;ka ugha gSA vr% mldk ykHk mls ugha feyrkA ;g U;k;ky; i{kdjksa dh lgh fLFkfr ds fy, olh;rukek dks izekf.kr fd;k tkuk vko’;d ik;k tkrk gSA vr% vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;k; n`”Vkarksa ds izdk’k esa vkosnu vkns’k 41 fu;e 27 lgikfBr /kkjk 151 lh-ih-lh- Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA oknh dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k olh;rukek izekf.kr djus gsrq lk{; is’k fd;s tkus gsrq volj fn;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh bldk [kaMu djrs gq, izfroknh.k pkgs rks fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k lk{; is’k dj ldrs gSaA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; 12-10-2009 vikLr djrs gq, izdj.k dks lk{; ysdj iqu% fu.kZ; ikfjr djus gsrq fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izfrizsf”kr fd;k tkrk gSA**
5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under:
5.1 The respondent/plaintiff herein filed a civil suit for declaration of his title, possession and for arrears of rent pleading inter alia that appellant/defendant herein is the tenant of late Shri Pyarelal, sole owner of the property described in Schedule annexed to the plaint let-out to him in the year 1975 on monthly rent of Rs.175; and further pleaded that the appellant/defendant failed to pay rent since 01.10.2005 and late Shri Pyarelal has executed a will dated 20.02.1984 which is duly registered in favour of respondent/plaintiff and he has acquired right and title on the said property by way of the will
