Appellate courts must decide cases finally when evidence on record is sufficient, complying with Order 41 Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. Remand is an exceptional power, not to be used routinely, as unnecessary retrials only serve to cause delay and defeat the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/Defendants assailing the judgment dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned ADJ-02, whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge in a Suit for perpetual injunction and recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution till realization, was set aside and the Suit was remanded back to the learned Trial Court, for fresh adjudication.

2. The Plaintiff/ Appellant filed a Suit No. 198/2014 for recovery for perpetual injunction and for recovery of Rs 1,80,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization.

3. The brief facts as stated in the plaint, are that the Plaintiffs/Appellants, namely Radhey Behari Lal Saxena and Bipin Behari Lal Saxena, claimed that they were inducted as tenants in respect of immovable property bearing Municipal No. 5483 along with mezzanine floor on the ground floor and Municipal No. 5484, situated on the first floor at Dhanvir Ashram, Gandhi Market, Sarai Hafiz Banna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”), by the owners thereof, who were minors at the relevant time, acting through their father and guardian Hafiz Ahmed Jamal and their guardian Mrs. Farhat Jahan Begum, with effect from 01.02.1964 at a monthly rent of Rs.198/-. It was further stated that the prevailing rate of rent subsequently stood enhanced to Rs.440/- per month.

4. A Rent Note dated 09.02.1964 for a period of 11 months, was executed in favour of the owners/minor landlords and they paid rent through their father, Hafiz Ahmed Jamal, who issued acknowledgments, in respect thereof. The Plaintiffs/Appellants stated that the owners/landlords of the suit property were Akhtar Jamal, Akram Jamal, Azhar Jamal, Surraya Jamal, Zohra Jamal, Nargis Jamal and Shella Jamal.

5. It was further stated that the original Rent Deed was executed and signed by the Plaintiffs/Appellants, whereas the acknowledgment thereof was signed by Hafiz Ahmed Jamal, father of the landlords, on 17.02.1964. According to the Plaintiffs/Appellants, the original Rent Deed was thereafter, handed over to Hafiz Ahmed Jamal, who in turn delivered the original acknowledgment receipt to the Plaintiffs/Appellants in token thereof.

6. According to the Rent Note, the Plaintiffs were authorized and entitled to sub-let or give on license or lease any portion or part of the tenanted premises.

7. It was averred that Defendant No.2, Prabha Saxena, is the wife of Defendant No.1, late Raj Kumar Saxena; Defendant Nos. 3 and 5, Dinesh Saxena and late Sudhir Saxena respectively, are the brothers of Defendant No.1; and Defendant Nos. 4 and 6, Anshul Saxena and Prateek Saxena, are the sons of Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 respectively. The Plaintiffs/Appellants alleged that the aforesaid Defendants, had unlawfully trespassed into the suit property, interfered with their business activities and caused irreparable loss and injury to them.

8. The Plaintiffs averred that the verandah shown at Point “A” in the Site Plan, comprises a compound enclosed by almirahs on all