Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 1095
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J
Hajari Chand Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Pramod Mittal, Madhu Mittal, Vinit Mittal, Tanuja, Sneha, Trapti, Smt. Anita – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5808/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Abhimanyu Singh
For the Respondents: Mr.Kapil Gupta, Mr.R.S.Sinsinwar, Mr.Dharmendar Kumar
Appellate Court can frame additional issues but cannot mandate re-evaluation of already determined issues absent valid reasons.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 25 - Remand of matter - The Appellate Court's order quashing prior judgment due to unframed issues is partially correct; however, it cannot direct re-evaluation of previously decided issues without basis. The proper procedure requires returning findings on additional issues only after taking evidence on them. (Paras 8, 9, 15)
(B) Jurisdiction of Appellate Court - Discretion of the Appellate Court includes framing additional issues but not re-determining prior findings without valid reasons. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenged the Appellate Court's order remanding the case back to the Trial Court to rehear based on newly framed issues while quashing prior findings on already decided issues.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the Civil Court to revisit issues previously resolved, although it correctly mandated a re-evaluation based on additional issues framed.
Issues: The core issue was whether the Appellate Court was correct in remanding the matter with directives on already decided issues and if it had interpreted its powers under CPC correctly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that an Appellate Court must adhere strictly to procedural laws when remanding cases and cannot revert to previously resolved matters unless there is a valid justification.
Result: The appeal is disposed of with modifications to the extent of the Appellate Court's directions.
Order
17/08/2021
This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order dated 06.10.2017, passed in First Appeal No.04/2015 decided by ADJ No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.
The appeal was filed by the respondents challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 passed in favour of the appellant.
The Appellate Court by the impugned order has held that the Court below had failed to frame an important issue in the suit and by framing an additional issue, the Appellate Court quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court by framing new issue as issue No.1 and both the parties were directed to lead oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court and further the finding was again required to be given by the Trial court on issue Nos.1, 2, 4 & 7 as were originally framed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court had also directed the Trial Court to decide the suit within one year.
The appellant feeling aggrieved against quashing of judgment and decree passed in his favour, assails the impugned order, primarily on the ground of violation of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that if the Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that an important issue was not framed by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court had power to frame an additional issue and to that extent, the matter could have been remanded back by taking fresh evidence on the newly framed issue and then the matter was required to be sent back to the Appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh.
Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Court has committed an error in quashing and set aside the entire judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 and further wrongly gave direction to decide issue Nos.1, 2, 4 & 7 afresh.
Learned counsel submitted that the power of the Appellate Court in framing issue and then refer them for Trial to the Civil Court, is very well defined under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC and the Appellate Court without considering the relevant provision of law, has passed the order.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire reading of the impugned order dated 06.07.2017, is based on the ground that an important issue was left out and the same was required to be framed as an additional issue and evidence on the same issue, could be collected by the Trial Court.
Learned counsel submitted that there was no basis to ask for findings on the issues, which were already decided as issue Nos.1, 2, 4 & 7 by the Trial Court.
Learned counsel Mr.Kapil Gupta appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the Appellate Court in passing the order of remanding the matter back by the Appellate Court to the Trial Court and further the finding on issues No.1, 2, 4 & 7 is required to be given again in view of additional issue, which has been framed by the Appellate Court.
Learned counsel submitted that there will be inconsistent finding on issue Nos.1, 2, 4 & 7 if maintained, as was passed in the original judgment and decree.
Learned counsel submitted that once the additional issue is to be decided again by the Trial Court, necessarily the other connected issues, needs separate finding by the Trial Court again.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellate Court has exercised its power by permitting to lead evidence on the newly framed additional issue only and as such no direction has been given to lead fresh evidence on the issues, which were already framed and decided.
Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Court has not given any power to the Trial Court to take evidence again on all the issues and as such the appellant has come before this Court on apprehensions.
Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 was required to be set aside in toto otherwise the findings, which would be recorded on additional issue, can run contrarily to the findings, which were al
