Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BIBHU DATTA GURU
Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Late Bholaram Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Ashwani Kumar S/o Late Taran Das Sahu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.
1. By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘the CPC’) the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 18/11/2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Patan, District Durg C.G. in New Civil Appeal No. 190-A/2024 (Old Appeal No. 94-A/2023) (Ashwani Kumar & Anr. Vs. Hemant Kumar Sahu & Ors.) whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Patan, District Durg, C.G. in Civil Suit No. 08A/2021 dated 14.08.2023 (Hemant Kumar Sahu & Ors. Vs. Aswani Kumar & Ors.) has been set-aside and the matter has been remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs preferred a suit seeking a declaration, permanent injunction and partition, pleading inter alia that defendant No.1 Ashwani Kumar and Bholaram (father of plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 and husband of Plaintiff No. 5) were real brothers. Bholaram passed away in the year 2012. In the name of late Bholaram, agricultural lands situated at Village Bohardih, Patwari Halka No. 19, Re
Appellate courts can remand cases for retrial when necessary parties are absent, emphasizing the importance of inclusive representation in ancestral property disputes.
An appellate court's remand order under Order XLI Rule 23-A CPC must be justified by clear error in trial court decisions, with findings on possession and title needing consideration before partition....
The First Appellate Court can remand a partition suit for inclusion of omitted joint family properties to ensure equitable distribution among coparceners.
Judicial efficiency mandates that remand for fresh disposal should only occur when necessary; a remanding court must determine the parties' shares or justify retrial necessity, which was neglected he....
The Appellate Court erred in denying recovery of possession despite confirming the plaintiff's title, emphasizing that possession without title is unlawful.
The appellate court must decide cases based on available evidence and cannot remand without necessity, as doing so prolongs litigation without serving justice.
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
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
