MOHINI KAPUR, J.-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 27th September, 1976. In an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Deeg (Bharatpur), a certified copy of one document was admitted in evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. The appellate court allowed the appeal and set asid the judgment 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 dis-prove 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 Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. for the production of a document and this was admitted by the impugned order by the learned Munsiff 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 allowed the production of fresh documents or consider other matters in contravention of the order of romand.

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 Jaw 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 Order 13 Rule 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 Vs. Collector of Customs (Valuation Section)(l) the Appellate Collector under the Customs Act remanded the matter with the direction that the Section 14 (1) (b) of the Customs Act should be applied but the Assistant Collector passed an order holding that the determination should be on the basis of Section 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 Section 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 in-justified and without jurisdiction.

6. In Charles N. Ambrose Vs. Meeakashi Ammal Ramal Ammal (2) 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 Vs. Guj Ram (3) 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 Deviprasad Vs. Jagannathdas Gajrangdas (4) it has been held that the power and juris

Click Here to Read the rest of this document