Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
ROHIT ARYA, J.
Jagnnath and another - Appellant
Versus
Karuna and others - Respondent
M.A.No.No.1090 of 2017
Decided on : 25-01-2018
Remand - Civil Appeal - The court set aside the order of remand and directed the appellate court to decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, based on the statutory requirements under Order 41 Rules 23 and 23-A of CPC and the scope, limit, extent, and dimension of jurisdiction of the appellate court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs' suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed, and the appellate court chose to remand the suit without reversing the findings of the trial court, only on the premise that further facts are required to be elucidated by way of spot inspection through Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for just decision of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court was oblivious of the statutory requirement under Order 41 Rules 23 and 23-A of CPC in the context of power of remand, and set aside the order of remand with direction to the appellate court to decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law.
Issues: The issue was whether the appellate court's order of remand was in line with the statutory requirements under Order 41 Rules 23 and 23-A of CPC and the scope, limit, extent, and dimension of jurisdiction of the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the statutory requirements under Order 41 Rules 23 and 23-A of CPC and the scope, limit, extent, and dimension of jurisdiction of the appellate court, as laid down in relevant judgments.
Final Decision: The impugned order of remand was set aside with direction to the appellate court to decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law.
1. This appeal filed by defendants no.1 and 2 under Order 43 Rule 1(u) CPC has been preferred against the order of remand dated 19.05.2017 passed by the District Judge, Alirajpur in Civil Appeal No.19-A/2016. On appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Alirajpur in Civil Suit No.11-A/2016 the same has been set aside and remanded the suit back to the trial Court for trial.
2. In the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. (2016) 10 SCC 315 and by this Court in the cases of Murarilal Vs. Ram Kumar Ojha ILR (2014) MP 2162, Shivdayal Vs. Meena Bai ILR (2014) MP 2174, wherein the scope, limit, extent and dimension of jurisdiction of the appellate Court under Order 41 Rules 23 and 23-A CPC are laid down requiring the appellate authority to first address on justifiability of reversing the findings of the Court below and ascertaining the requirement for remand thereafter shall exercise jurisdiction under Order 41 Rules 23 and 23-A CPC.
3. In the instant case, a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. On appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs, the appellate Court chose to remand the suit without reversing the findings setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on merits; only on the premise that further facts are required to be elucidated by way of spot inspection through Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for just decision of the suit.
4. In the opinion of this Court, the appellate Court appears to be oblivious of the statutory requirement under Order 41 Rules 23 and 23-A of CPC in the context of power of remand. In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syeda Rahimunnisa (Supra) and of this Court in the cases of Murarilal (Supra) and Shivdayal (Supra), the impugned order of remand cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.05.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.19-A/2016 is set aside with direction to the appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law.
C.C. as per rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
