The jurisdiction of the trial Court after remand is limited to the directions made by the appellate Court and it is not open to the trial Court to allow the production of fresh documents or consider other matters in contravention of the order of remand.

MOHINI KAPUR, J.

( 1 ) ORDER :- The question which arises for determination in this revision is about the jurisdiction of the trial Court after the matter has been remanded to it by the appellate Court. In this case, a suit for partition of property was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Bharatpur, who decreed the suit on 27-9-1976. In an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Deeg (Bharatpur), a certified copy of one document was admitted in evidence under O. 41, R. 27, C. P. C. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement of the learned Civil Judge and issued a direction at the time of the remand that the plaintiff and defendant shall be given an opportunity to prove or disprove the document and thereafter the decision should be given. After the matter went back to the learned Civil Judge, the non-petitioners moved an application under O. 13, R. 2, C. P. C. for the production of a document and this was admitted by the impugned order by the learned Civil Judge and the same has been challenged in this revision.

( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the jurisdiction of the Court after remand is limited to the directions made by the appellate Court and it is not open to the trial Court to allow the production of fresh documents or consider other matters in contravention of the order of remand.

( 3 ) AS against this, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has contended that while passing the order of remand, the learned Additional District Judge has set aside the decree of the trial Court which means that it was an open remand and in such circumstances, the trial Court can try the suit and dispose it in accordance with the provisions of law without being circumscribed in any manner. According to the learned counsel for the non-petitioners, the appellate Court in this case has not placed any limit on the powers of the trial Court and as such it was permissible for the trial Court to admit document under O. 13, R. 2, C. P. C. It is also contended that this Court should not interfere in revision because it cannot be said that the trial Court has acted with material irregularity and the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE decisions of various Courts cited in this connection are as under :-

( 5 ) IN Scientific Instruments Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (Valuation Section), AIR 1976 Cal 38 the Appellate Collector under the Customs Act remanded the matter with the direction that S. 14 (1) (b), Customs Act, should be applied but the Assistant Collector passed an order holding that the determination should be on the basis of S. 14 (1) (a) of the Act. It was held that on remand the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector was limited by the order of the appellate authority and determination should be on the basis of S. 14 (1) (a) of the Act. It was held that on remand the Assistant Collector acted in excess of his jurisdiction which was limited by the order of the appellate authority and it was his duty to comply with it. As the order was contrary to the direction of the appellate authority, it was held to be illegal and unjustified and without jurisdiction.

( 6 ) IN Charles N. Ambrose v. Meenakshi Ammal Ramal Arrimal, AIR 1953 Trav Co. 109 it was held that when the order of remand determines the jurisdiction then the trial Court is not empowered to give a decision on a matter which has not been remanded for enquiry.

( 7 ) IN Roop Kishore v. Guj Ram, ILR (1953) Raj 988 the Appellate Court while remanding a case issued directions to allow the amendment of plaint within one month from the date of remand. When the plaintiff filed the amended plaint one month after such date it was held that the trial Court could not accept the amended plaint and could not extend the time fixed by the trial Court. The order of the trial Court extending time was set aside.

( 8 ) IN Budhilal Devipra