The refusal of an inferior court to comply with the directions issued by a superior court is in effect denial of justice and is destructive of the basic principle of the administration of justice based on the hierarchy of courts.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri P. K. Misra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Faujdar Rai appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 6 to 11.

( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessarily details, the facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that suit filed by the contesting respondents under Section 229b read with Section 209 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was decreed by the trial court on 7. 12. 1977, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate court vide judgment dated 22. 11. 1979, allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the trial court. The findings of the trial court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 were set aside. The appellate court reframed the said two issues and directed the trial court to hear and decide the case afresh after recording the findings on the reframed Issue Nos. 1 and 2. The finding of the trial court on issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were confirmed.

( 3 ) AFTER remand, the trial court instead of deciding the two issues reframed by the appellate court framed as many as 12 issues and decreed the suit on 28. 4. 1984. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the court of first appeal on 2. 8. 1984. The second appeal filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 3. 5. 1985.

( 4 ) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that trial court failed to comply with the order of remand inasmuch as the findings on issue Nos. 3 to 6 were confirmed by the first appellate court and the case was remanded back to hear and decide the suit afresh on two issues reframed by it. The said order became final and the trial court could not have gone beyond the directions contained in the order of remand made by the first appellate court. It has further been urged that though specific ground in this regard was taken in the first appeal as well as second appeal filed by the petitioner but both the courts below have failed to consider the same.

( 5 ) IN reply, it has been contended that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by framing fresh issues by the trial court inasmuch as the two issues reframed by the first appellate court were included by the trial court in the issues framed by it. It has further been urged that as entire dispute has been decided on merits and substantial justice has been done between the parties and as such there should be no interference by this Court. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

( 6 ) THE trial court had initially framed 7 issues. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the findings of the trial court on issue Nos. 3 to 6 were confirmed. However, the first appellate court reframed issue Nos. 1 and 2 and directed the trial court to decide the suit afresh after recording findings on the said two issues. Issue No. 7 was with regard to entitlement of the plaintiff for any other relief. It was held by the appellate court that since the judgment of trial court was being set aside plaintiff was not entitled to any relief at this stage. However, on remand trial court framed as many as 12 issues and decreed the suit on the basis of findings arrived at on the said issues. It is clear that the direction contained in the remand order was not followed by the trial court and it proceeded to decide the case on the issues framed afresh by it in utter disregard to the directions contained in the order of remand. The decree of the trial court was challenged by the petitioner in first appeal and thereafter, a second appeal was also filed by him. A perusal of the judgment of two courts below goes to show that both of them have failed to consider this vital aspect of the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from the memo of second appeal filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition that ground No. 6 was specific ground in this regard before the Board of Revenue.

( 7 ) IT is not open to an inferior Court or Tribunal to refuse to carry out the direct