The appellate court must provide cogent reasons for remanding a case, and it should decide based on existing evidence if sufficient, rather than remanding without due justification.

ORDER :

Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.

1. The appellant/ defendant No.3 has preferred this miscellaneous appeal challenging the validity and propriety of judgment/ order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Janjgir-Champa in Civil Appeal No.03-A of 2015 (Pawan Kumar Vs. Om Prakash and Others), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.48A of 2003 was set aside and the case was remitted back to the trial court to decide it afresh after appreciating evidence and affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Pawan Kumar/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants, inter alia on the ground that the suit property admeasuring 1.09 acres was recorded in the name of his father in the year 1980. There was a partition amongst the members of family and a memorandum of partition was reduced into writing on 29.1.1990. The suit house mentioned in Schedule “A” fell in the share of the plaintiff, who spent a huge amount in its renovation. The Tehsildar passed an order of partition on 18.9.1995 but Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir remanded the matter. Thereafter, the Tehsildar passed a fresh order on 30.6.1997 but failed to consider memorandum of partition dated 29.1.1990. The plaintiff pleaded that he was in possession of the property whereas, the defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement and denied the factum of partition. It was pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff challenged the order dated 30.6.1997 passed by Tehsildar by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) but the same was dismissed and said order attained finality, as it was not challenged before the superior revenue authorities. It was also pleaded that defendant No.2 sold 0.05 acres of land to one Pawan Modi through registered sale deed dated 27.6.2003. Defendants No.1 & 4 admitted memorandum of partition dated 29.1.1990. Learned trial Court framed issues, the parties led their evidence and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014. The plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.21A of 2015 before the learned District Judge, which was decided on 12.5.2015, whereby the mater was remitted back to the learned trial Court to decide the additional issue framed on 28.1.2005 and pass judgment afresh.

3. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 16.7.2015 again dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.03A of 2015 before the learned District Judge, Janjgir-Champa and vide judgment/ order dated 16.11.2016, the learned Appellate Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration on all issues and set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2014 & 16.7.2015. Defendant No.3 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Appellate Court has erred in remanding the matter for fresh consideration without recording sufficient reasons as per mandate of Order 41 Rule 23, Rule 23-A or Rule 25 of CPC. He would contend that the learned Appellate Court ought to have assigned reasons to upset the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. He would submit that the learned Appellate Court should have decided the case on merits according to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 24 of CPC. He would further submit that the order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of routine and prays to set aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing fo