The necessity of a fair hearing and proper jurisdiction in civil suits is paramount, with the appellate court required to consider these aspects before remanding a case.

ORDER :

1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the, “Appellate Court”) in File No. 103/Appeal/Case No. 169/2019 titled, “Chuni Lal Vs. Ajay Kumar and ors.”, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2019 passed by the learned City Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the, “trial Court”) in case titled, “Chuni Lal Vs. Ajay Kumar and ors.” has been set aside.

2. The specific case of the appellant is that the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) has filed a civil suit for declaration, declaring the irrevocable general Power of Attorney executed on 18.05.2004 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jammu as illegal, unwarranted, fictitious, fraudulent, null and void along with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein from further acting on the Power of Attorney or alienating, changing the nature of property or transferring the same in any manner. The respondent No. 1 challenged the Power of Attorney on the ground that the same has been illegally obtained by proforma respondent No. 1 with respect to land measuring 05 Kanals 08-3/4 Marlas comprising under Khasra No. 615 min Khata No. 422, Khewat No. 45 situated at Salmeri, Tehsil Birpur, District Samba. It was further pleaded in the suit by the respondent that the alleged Attorney holder-Ajay Kumar, on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, had executed a Sale Deed in favour of the appellant as well as other proforma respondents with respect to the land mentioned supra.

3. The further fact of the matter is that appellants herein appeared before the learned trial Court and filed their written statements, wherein the appellants had denied the claim of the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) by taking number of preliminary and factual objections. The learned trial Court after careful examination of the record/submissions, pleadings of the parties and further considering the important fact that the respondent No. 1, has also filed a civil suit against the appellants herein and other defendants (proforma respondents), wherein he has challenged the Sale Deed dated 21.08.2004, which was executed by Ajay Kumar, i.e., Attorney Holder of respondent No. 1 on the basis of impugned Power of Attorney dated 18.05.2004 dismissed the suit of the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff). The learned Appellate Court while hearing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1, allowed the appeal and passed the order impugned dated 17.12.2024, thereby remanded the case back to the trial Court (City Judge, Jammu). The appellants, thus, aggrieved of the same are challenging it on the following grounds:-

“(i) That the order impugned is bad, illegal, perverse and against the settled legal preposition of law thus the same deserves to be dismissed.

(ii) That the Learned Court of 2^nd Additional District Judge, Jammu while passing the order impugned has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective being the final court of fact. Further the Court was under an obligation to see the maintainability of the suit at the first instance as well as the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court to adjudicate the instant suit and thereafter should have analyzed the impugned judgment passed by the Trial court vide order dated 25.10.2019 in absence of the proper adjudication of the case by the first appellate Court, the impugned order passed by the 2^nd Additional District Judge is liable to be set aside.

iii. That the first appellate Court has failed to appreciate the observation made by the Trial Court with respect to the absence of cause of action when admittedly from the bare perusal of the plaint nothing has been pleaded by the plaintiff (respondent no. 1) regarding the same. So far the cause of action is concerned, nor any date or place of cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint as such the