Wholesale remand of a case for de novo trial is unwarranted when the appellate court admits additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; instead, the court should frame a specific issue and seek a finding on that issue under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC.

ORDER

1. This Misc.Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.11.2025, Annexure A-6 passed in RCA 24/2021 whereby the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC has been taken on record and the case has been remanded back to the trial Court by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2021, Annexure A-4.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent herein has filed RCSA 06/2020 for relief of declaration, mutation, partition and possession. As per relief clause of the plaint whereby 1/5th share has been claimed by the plaintiff was dismissed after full trial i.e after recording of evidence of both the parties and after affording opportunity of hearing. Against this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, an appeal as mentioned herein above has been preferred wherein some documents were filed along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The arguments were heard and during writing judgment, the application has been disposed off and documents were taken on record and the case has been remitted back to the trial Court for de novo trial. The appellants being aggrieved by the aforesaid order is in this appeal before this Court.

3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the documents which were taken on record relate to prove the fact that property in dispute is ancestral property and respondent has 1/5th share therein. In such a situation, the learned trial Court should have not remanded the case by setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree in toto and particular issue should have been framed as per provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 23 of CPC. To buttress his submissions despite inviting attention to the aforesaid provisions learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment dated 31.10.2022 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Omprakash Vs. Ashok and others M.A.No.2152/2021. Inviting attention to para 13 of the aforesaid judgment learned counsel submits that wholesale remand to the trial Court after setting aside its judgment and decree was wholly unwarranted in the factual matrix of the case. He assails the order passed by the Court below as illegal and also eating out precious judicial time of the Courts. On these contentions prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order with a direction to the Court below i.e. appellate Court for framing particular issue based on the documents admitted while allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and finding on that issue should have been called from the trial Court after giving opportunity of leading evidence on that issue by both the parties.

4. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

5. It is not in dispute that application under Order 41 Rule 27 has been allowed wherein the Court below has found that those documents are relevant for resolving the controversy in dispute in the aforesaid civil suit. In such a situation, throwing out the trial Court's judgment and decree in toto was not warranted. It could have sub served the ends of justice, if the necessary issue was framed by the trial Court and the learned appellate Court relating to the documents taken on record and the same should have been sent to the trial Court for affording opportunity of leading evidence and getting the finding on that issue.

6. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the learned Court below has committed illegality in setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanding