Court No. - 39

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4573 of 2019

Petitioner :- Amar Deep Shukla And Another

Respondent :- Satya Narayan

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Gupta

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Rama Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for

petitioners and Mr. Akhtar Ali, Advocate, holding brief of Mr.

Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has

been filed challenging order dated 15.3.2019 passed by IXth

Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur in Civil Revision No.

46 of 2017 (Satya Narain Vs. Amar Deep and another) arising

out of order dated 17.9.2017 passed by Trial Court, whereby

and whereunder application Paper No. 26 Ka filed by plaintiff

in Original Suit No. 193/12 seeking withdrwal of aforesaid

Original Suit was allowed but without liberty to institute a fresh

suit has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to

Trial Court for deciding application Paper No. 26 Ka, afresh.

Learned counsel for petitioners in challenge to the impugned

order dated 15.3.2019 primarily submits that in case withdrawal

application filed by plaintiff respondent is allowed with liberty

to file a fresh suit, same shall cause irreparable loss and injury

to defendant petitioner. Suit filed by plaintiff respondents has

remained pending for a period of more than 8 years. Pleadings

have already been completed. Therefore, it is urged that order

of remand passed by Revisional Court is manifestly illegal and

has caused great injustice to defendant petitioner.

What are the parameters for judging the validity of an order of

remand could not be explained by learned counsel for

petitioner. It is well established that an order of remand passed

by Court can be judged only on limited grounds namely the

order of remand is vague or the same has been passed to fill in

the lacunae in evidence. Trial Court while passing order dated

17.9.2020 has not recorded any reason for declining the liberty

to plaintiff for instituting a fresh suit. In view of above, no

illegality can be attached to the impugned order passed by

Revisional Court, whereby Revisional Court allowed the

revision and remanded the matter to Trial Court. The order

passed by Trial Court suffered from jurisdictional error, which

has been rectified by Revisional Court by remanding the matter.

Consequently, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error

in the impugned order passed by Revisional Court.

In view of above, present petition fails and is, liable to be

dismissed.

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.11.2020

HSM