138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 03.07.2025 Smt. Gurdev Kaur ...Appellant Vs.

Mohinder Singh (deceased)

through his legal representative and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate Ms. Ishani Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. J.S. Grewal, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Dr. D.S. Lamba, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

***

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J. (Oral)

1. The plaintiff assails the correctness of the First Appellate Court's order remitting the mater back to the trial Court for fresh decision after framing additional issues.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are the owner in possession of the land measuring 25 kanals 13 marlas land and are entitled to receive compensation for 03 kanals 19 marlas land, which was decreed by the trial Court on 26.08.2022. Before the First Appellate Court, the defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement, which was allowed. Thereafter, the Appellate Court has directed the trial Court to frame issues and consequently remitted the matter back.

3. The enabling power of the First Appellate Court to remit the matter back to the lower Court is regulated by Order XLI Rule 23 and 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC), which has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘P.Purushottam Reddy and Another v. Pratap Steels Ltd’. (2002) 2 SCC 686, in the following manner:-

“10. The next question to be examined is the legality and propriety of the order of remand made by the High Court. Prior to the insertion of Rule 23A in Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure by CPC Amendment Act 1976, there were only two provisions contemplating remand by a court of appeal in Order XLI of CPC. Rule 23 applies when the trial court disposes of the entire suit by recording its findings on a preliminary issue without deciding other issues and the finding on preliminary issue is reversed in appeal. Rule 25 applies when the appellate court notices an omission on the part of the trial court to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact which in the opinion of the appellate court was essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits. However, the remand contemplated by Rule 25 is a limited remand in as much as the subordinate court can try only such issues as are referred to it for trial and having done so the evidence recorded together with findings and reasons therefore of the trial court, are required to be returned to the appellate court. However, still it was a settled position of law before 1976 Amendment that the court, in an appropriate case could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to order a remand it such a remand was considered pre-eminently necessary ex debito justitiae, though not covered by any specific provision of Order 11 of the CPC. In cases where additional evidence is required to be taken in the event of any one of the clause of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 being attracted such additional evidence oral or documentary, is allowed to be produced either before the appellate court itself or by directing any court subordinate to the appellate court to receive such evidence and send it to the appellate court. In 1976, Rule 23A has been inserted in Order XLI which provides for a remand by an appellate court hearing an appeal against a decree if (i) the trial court disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and (ii) the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary. On twin conditions being satisfied, the appellate court can exercise the same power of remand under Rule 23A as it is under Rule 23. After the amendment all the cases of wholesale remand are covered by Rule 23 and 23A. In view of the express provisions of these rules, the High Court cannot have recourse to its inherent powers to make a remand because as held in Mahendra v. Sushila (AIR 1965 SC