The court established that remand requires a clear finding of necessity for retrial, which must be justified by the appellate authority.

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue which remanded the case for trial afresh.

3. The appellant herein filed the writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India on the pleadings inter alia that their existed a dispute with regard to right in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.247/333. The dispute remained unresolved and finally the appellant filed the suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer for declaration and correction of entries in revenue records that the appellants/writ petitioners are the rightful owners of the land in dispute which has been erroneously entered in the name of respondents. The suit was dismissed against which the revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue. As the pleadings stated, the Board of Revenue passed an order on 25.07.2011 in revision directing Assistant Collector/Executive Magistrate, Amer to decide the suit No.596/2002 and suit No.368/2007 simultaneously. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector stayed the proceedings of suit No. 596/2002 and suit No.368/2007 was transferred to Assistant Collector which was re-registered as Suit No.57/2016. Framing 21 issues, the Assistant Collector decided two suits and recorded that no case was made out for grant of any relief. The order was challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (RAA) [for short 'the RAA']. The appellate authority allowed the appeal vide order dated 07.08.2018 and directed that the name of the appellants be mutated in Khasra No.247/333 and to remove the name of the respondents. Aggrieved of the order passed by the RAA, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue which vide order dated 03.12.2020 set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2018 passed by the RAA. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue, the writ petitioners approached the High Court by filing writ petition which has been dismissed vide impugned order.

4. The appellant in person submits that the order passed by the RAA was unjust and improper and Board of Revenue remanded the case without deciding the matter on its own merits and without any case for remand being made out.

5. We have gone through the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 03.12.2020 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order has recorded that when the Board of Revenue was of the opinion that evidence available on record was not sufficient, it was justified in remanding the matter vide order dated 03.12.2020.

6. Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the provisions and the principles under Order 41 Rule 23A CPC as to when the powers of remand could be exercised by the Appellate Court.

7. Powers relating to remand are contained in provisions under Order 41 Rule 23A of the CPC. While provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 23 CPC confer power on the Appellate Court to remand the case where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed off the suit upon preliminary point, under Order 41 Rule 23A CPC, it has been provided that where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed off the case otherwise than on preliminary point and decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers as it has under Rule 23. The powers of remand thereafter have to be exercised within the four corners of the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC and Rule 23A of Order 41. The order passed by the Board of Revenue on 03.12.2020, which was assailed by filing the writ petition before the High Court reveals that the Board of Revenue recorded the finding in Paragraph 9 and 10 of its order that the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal mainly relied upon spot inspection report and further that only on the basis of the spot inspecti