The appellate court must focus on the merit of the case rather than relying on extraneous documents for remand decisions, reinforcing procedural norms in civil litigation.

JUDGMENT

The duty of the first appellate court is not to do any reverse driving on flimsy ground by ordering remand without going into the merits and demerits of the case and the dispute involved. That is what is actually done by the first appellate court in the instant case without adhering to the requirement for a remand and in violation of the mandate under Sections 23 , 23A and 24 of Order XLI C.P.C. The legal position has been settled by this Court in Gopalakrishnan and Another v. Ponnappan and Others [2021 (5) KHC 548].

2. It is on an extraneous ground a remand of the matter was ordered without going into the merits and demerits of the adjudication rendered by the trial court and the decree and judgment were set aside for the said purpose. The first appellate court has committed a grave error in ordering remand of the matter, that too, by taking into consideration a document which was filed under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. i.e. a death certificate of one Kasinathan Shetty who passed away as early as on 25/07/1960 and went on considering the same based on the age of the deceased entered in that document and found that at the time of acquisition of right over immovable property, he was only a minor. The first appellate court did not understand the evidentiary value of a death certificate. Further, it is not discussed anywhere in the judgment whether it would come under the purview of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. In fact, no sufficient reason was brought out to receive additional documents in the first appellate stage. No sufficient reason was also brought out why it was not produced at the trial stage. In fact, the said document has no much relevance regarding the age as entered in the document since it was not intended to record the age of the deceased. Hence, all the discussions made in that behalf by the first appellate court is highly extraneous and unwarranted.

3. The age as that of the deceased who died as early as on 25/07/1960 in the death certificate may not get any relevance and evidentiary value except to the extent of proving the identity of the deceased and the date of death. When it is related to the year 1960, it is too cumbersome to rely on such entry especially when it is not intended to record such entry. The basic principles governing acceptability of the evidence has been overlooked by the first appellate court. Hence, the order of remand is liable to be set aside. I do so. The matter is remanded back to the first appellate court for fresh disposal by attending all the disputes involved in the matter, for which the parties shall appear before that court on 03/03/2022. The first appellate court shall dispose of the matter within two weeks positively from the date of appearance and report compliance.

All the appeals will stand allowed accordingly. No costs.