The Appellate Court cannot remand a case without meeting the specific criteria outlined in the Civil Procedure Code, particularly under Order 41, Rules 23, 23-A, or 25.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.

Defendant No.3 of the Civil Suit No.543 of 2009 titled as "Lalit Mohan Rajprohat v. Dushyant Bansal and others", dismissed on 17.01.2011 by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jalandhar, is before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, remanding the appeal (CA bearing CNR N: PBJL01-011051-2012) filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) and allowing the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and further directing the trial Court to allow the amendment in pleadings, if sought by the plaintiff.

2. In order to avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the case set up by the plaintiff - Lalit Mohan Rajprohat, Smt. Chanchal Rani and Shri Sanjiv Gulati were earlier recorded to be the owner of the land measuring 20 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.13142 situated at Mohalla Gobind Nagar, Jalandhar in Jamabandi for the year 1989-90. Chanchal Rani executed a general power of attorney dated 07.11.1990 regarding 10 marlas of the said land in favour of Vikas Chhabra & Manmohan Singh. Sanjiv Gulati had also executed a general Power of attorney in favour of Chanchal Rani and by virtue of the same, she further executed special power of attorney dated 26.09.1994 regarding the share of Sanjiv Gulati in favour of Vikas Chhabra & Manmohan Singh. By virtue of these power of attorneys in their favour in respect of total 20 marlas of land, Vikas Chhabra & Manmohan Singh entered into an agreement to sell of the said land in favour of plaintiff - Lalit Mohan Rajprohat and later, executed two separate sale deeds dated 30.04.1996 for 10 marlas each for consideration and then name of the plaintiff was reflected in jamabandi for the year 1999-2000. It was alleged by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 -Dushyant Bansal (respondent No.2 herein) executed a sale deed dated 12.04.2005 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 (respondent No.3 and appellant herein) and on the basis of said sale deed, they tried to take forcible possession of the suit property. Plaintiff challenged the sale deed dated 12.04.2005 to be the result of fraud, fabrication and mis-representation. Though the matter was reported to the police, but it was alleged that in connivance with the police, defendant Nos.2 and 3 succeeded in taking illegal possession of the suit property. Plaintiff prayed for declaring the sale deed dated 12.04.2005 as null and void.

4. Defendants contested the suit and following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of sale deed dated 12.04.05 executed by defendant No.1? OPP

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

5. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

6. Whether plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

8. Whether site plan attached with plaint is wrong? OPD

9. Relief." "

5.1 After taking the evidence produced by the parties, suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2011.

5.2 Plaintiff filed appeal in the District Court. Before the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff (appellant therein) moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. It was pleaded in the application that defendant No.1 -Dushyant Bansal had challenged the title of Chanchal Rani and Sanjiv Gulati, i.e. vendors of the plaintiff in respect of Khasra No.13142. Rather, said defendant No.1 claimed ownership of the suit property on the basis of judgment & decree dated 01.02.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.329 of 2001, on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 07.09.1974. It was alleged that the persons, who had executed the agreement to sell dated 07.09.1974, i.