Full Judgment Text
AO17-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 17 OF 2021
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5707 OF 2021
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 17 OF 2021.
Balkrishna Padmakar Joshi,
Age 72 Years, Occu: Pujari
R/o Patna Devi Temple, Patna
Tq. Chalasgaon, Dist. Jalgaon
... Appellant
VERSUS
1. Superintending Archeologist,
On behalf of Director General,
Archaeological Survey of India,
Aurangabad Circle, Bibi Ka Makbara,
Aurangabad.
2. The Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Archaeological Survey of India,
Janapath, New Delhi
... Respondents
Mr S. P. Brahme and Mr. M.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. S. G. Talhar, A.S.G. for the respondents
CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 26TH JULY, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
With the consent of both sides, this appeal is taken up
1.
for final disposal at admission stage.
Page 1 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
Factual matrix:
2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed in
Regular Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2015 by the learned District
Judge-5, Jalgaon, dated 25.02.2021, thereby remanded Regular
Civil Suit No.377 of 2005 to the trial Court for fresh decision, the
appellant/original plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
3. The subject matter is a residential block consisting of
two rooms with toilet and bathroom, situated at a distance of 30
feet away from the ancient monument of Chandikadevi Temple
at Patnadevi, Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. According to the
appellant, the suit house is in existence since 19th century.
Forefathers of the appellant has received the suit house by way
of Sanad, issued by the Collector, Khandesh in the year 1861.
The appellant is performing Archana and services to the deity
and looking after the management of the suit premises and
getting yearly allowances for the same. Respondent No.1 had
issued notification under section 3 of the Ancient Monument
and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of convenience).
Page 2 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
4. According to the respondents, the suit property is
situated within the protected zone of the monument. The
respondents issued notice to the appellant dated 27.09.2005
and called upon the appellant to remove the suit house since it
is within the protected and/or prohibited area. The appellant
challenged the notice by filing suit with two fold reliefs
declaration and injunction.
5. The respondents had contested the suit. Both the
parties have produced oral as well as documentary piece of
evidence in support of their stand. The learned trial judge was
pleased to decree the suit and declared that the notice issued by
the respondents is invalid.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court, 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in
Regular Civil Suit No. 377/2005, the respondents have preferred
an appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.143/2015 before the
District Court, Jalgaon. After considering the arguments
advanced on behalf of both sides, the learned District Judge was
pleased to allow the appeal partly and remanded the suit to the
Page 3 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
trial court for decision afresh with direction to frame one
additional issue regarding validity of the notice.
7. In the above background, the appellant/original plaintiff
is before this Court.
8. Heard Mr. S.P. Brahme, the learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. A. G. Talhar, learned Assistant Solicitor
General for the respondents. Perused the judgment and decree
passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.143/2015 by the learned
District Judge-5, Jalgaon, as well as judgment and decree
passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 377/2005 by the learned 3rd
Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon.
Submissions of learned Advocate for the Appellant:-
9. Mr. S. P. Brahme, the learned Advocate for the appellant
submitted that the order passed by the District Judge, Jalgaon
remanding the suit to the trial court for decision afresh is
contrary to the settled legal position. He submitted that the
suit cannot be remanded for fresh decision to the trial court only
because one issue on the point of validity of the notice is not
framed. The District Court, being the first appellate court and
Page 4 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
last fact finding Court, could have framed the issue on the point
of notice and answered the same on the basis of evidence
available on record. The learned counsel submitted that both
parties have produced their oral and documentary piece of
evidence before the trial Court. The trial court has framed
issues. Both the parties were aware about the issues framed by
the trial Court. The respondents did not apply for recasting of
issues. The suit went on for trial and it came to be decreed.
Mr Brahme, the learned counsel submitted that in view
10.
of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure
Code, when evidence on record is sufficient, the appellate
Court may determine the case finally even after resettling the
issues, if necessary. The District Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction by overlooking the import of Order 41 Rule 24 of
the C.P.C. He submitted that the respondents have not raised
the plea as one of the grounds in the appeal memo of not
framing proper issues. The respondents even did not raise plea
before the District Court to remand the suit to the trial court for
fresh decision by framing one additional issue on the point of
validity of the notice. Mr. Brahme, the learned Advocate
Page 5 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
further submitted that the first appellate Court has committed
jurisdictional error in remanding the suit to the trial court for
fresh decision.
11. Mr. Brahme, the learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) By L.Rs. and
another, reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 4653.
Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General for the
respondents:
12. Mr. A.G. Talhar, the learned A.S.G. for the respondents
supported the judgment and decree passed by the District
Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 143/2015. He submitted that
the learned trial court has committed an error in not framing the
issue on the point of validity of notice issued by the
Archaeological Survey Department which is a moot question.
The learned District Judge has rightly held that the trial Court
ought to have framed the issue on the point of validity of the
notice and should have recorded finding. The learned District
Judge has rightly exercised its jurisdiction vested with it under
Page 6 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
Order 41 Rule 23 of the C.P.C. The order passed by the learned
District Judge is perfectly legal in the eyes of law.
13. Having regard to the submissions of Mr. S. P. Brahme,
learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Talhar, learned
A.S.G. for the respondents, perused Order 41 Rules 23, 24 and
25 of the C.P.C.
Discussion:
14. It is undisputed position that the learned trial Judge has
framed issues on the basis of rival pleadings of both sides and
the suit went on for trial. Both the parties were aware about
the issues framed by the learned trial Judge. Both the parties
have produced their oral and documentary piece of evidence in
order to prove their respective case, keeping in mind the issues
framed by the learned trial Judge. The suit came to be decreed.
The trial Judge has held that the notice issued by the
Archaeological Survey of India is illegal and void ab initio and
pleased to grant perpetual injunction against the respondents in
the background of apprehension of demolition of the suit house/
suit property.
Page 7 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
Legal Position:
15. Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A, 24, 25 and 26 of the C.P.C.
deals with remand of cases by the appellate Court. The power
of the appellate Court/District Judge to remand the suit to the
trial court for fresh decision on merits can be exercised only
when the appellate court, in the interest of justice, feels that
remand is just and proper. The appellate court should arrive at
finding on the material available on record that the judgment
of the trial court is erroneous and is liable to be reversed or
set aside. This is the condition precedent before passing the
order of remand under Order 41 Rule 23 of the C.P.C.
16. The order of remand should not be passed as a matter
of routine. The power of remand should be sparingly exercised.
There should be always an endeavour to dispose of the case
by the appellate Court itself when commissions and omissions
made by the trial court can be corrected by the appellate Court.
17. If the provision of Order 41 Rule 23 of the C.P.C. is
studied carefully, then the legal position regarding remand of
case under Rule 23 would be crystal clear. If the lower Appellate
Page 8 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
Court /District Court felt that the proper issues are not framed
by the trial Court, it is open for the Lower Appellate
Court/District Court to frame necessary issues and decide the
matter there itself instead of asking the parties again to go
before the trial Court. In fact, such exercise of remanding the
matter second time to the trial Court that too when the lower
appellate Court itself was competent to decide the issue which
falls for its consideration was unnecessary delaying the matter
and thereby causing injustice to the parties.
18. Order 41 Rule 24 of the C.P.C. provides that where the
evidence on record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court/
District Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court/
District Court may, after resetting the issues, if necessary, finally
determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the
Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded
wholly upon some ground other than that on which the
Appellate court proceeds.
Reasons for Conclusion
19. It is noticed that the first appellate Court felt that the
Trial Court ought to have framed the issue on the point of
Page 9 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
validity of the notice in the background of Section 19 of the Act
of 1958. The lower appellate court felt that the issue on the
point of validity of the notice, though important, was not framed
by the learned trial Judge and solely on that ground, remanded
the suit for decision afresh by giving direction to the trial court
to frame issue on the point of validity of the notice. The
approach of the first appellate Court while remanding the suit
to the trial Court for afresh decision appears to be very much
erroneous. None of the parties prayed for remand of the suit to
the trial court for afresh decision.
20. The appellants before the District Court did not raise
ground for framing the additional issue on the point of validity of
notice and even not prayed for remand of the suit on that
ground. Even then, the District Court/lower appellate Court has
remanded the suit to the trial court for afresh decision on the
point of validity of the notice. The lower appellate Court has
completely overlooked the provisions of Order 41 Rule 24 of the
C.P.C. Both the parties have produced their oral and
documentary piece of evidence according to their respective
stand. If it appears to the lower appellate Court that any fact
Page 10 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
essential for decision in the suit i.e. validity of the notice was
to be determined, the lower appellate Court could have framed
an issue on the point of validity of the notice by way of
resettling the issues and recorded finding on that particular
issue coupled with other issues after examining the evidence on
record. There was no need for the lower appellate Court to
remand the suit to the trial Court for decision afresh only for
framing additional issue on point of validity of the notice when
the lower appellate court itself clothed with powers of resettling
of issues as a lower appellate Court and last fact finding court.
The order of remand should not have been passed in this case.
The lower appellate Court has the power to analyse the factual
position and can decide the issue and also the additional issues,
if any. To support my aforesaid view, I refer to a citation in the
case of Bachahan Devi and another Vs. Nagar Nigam,
Gorakhpur and others, reported in 2008 AIR 1282 (SC).
21. In case of Sayeda 5Rahimunnisa (supra), it is held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 35 as under:
"35. It is a settled principle of law that in order to
claim remand of the case to the trial court, it is
necessary for the appellant to first raise such plea and
Page 11 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
then make out a case of remand on facts. The power
of the appellate court to remand the case to
subordinate court is contained in order XLI Rule 23,
23-A and 25 of CPC. It is, therefore, obligatory upon
the appellant to bring the case under any of these
provisions before claiming a remand. The appellate
court is required to record reasons as to why it has
taken recourse to any one out of the three Rules of
Order XLI of CPC for remanding the case to the trial
court. In the absence of any ground taken by the
respondents (appellants before the first appellate
court and High Court) before the first appellate court
and the High Court as to why the remand order in
these cases is called for and if so under which Rule of
Order XLI of CPC and further in the absence of any
finding, there was no justification on the part of the
High Court to remand the case to the trial court."
22. In view of the above scenario, the order of remand to
the trial court in this case is not warranted. In the facts of the
case in hand, the order of remand will merely prolong the
proceedings between the parties. The suit is of the year 2005.
It was decided on 16.02.2015, practically after 10 years. The
proceedings of Regular Civil Appeal No. 143/2015 came to be
disposed of on 25.02.2021. It would be causing injustice to the
Page 12 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
parties asking them again to go back to the trial Court and have
afresh decision simply by framing one additional issue.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the lower appellate court is liable to be quashed
and set aside. The appeal needs to be decided by the Principal
District Judge, Jalgaon. With this, I proceed to pass following
order:
O R D E R
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and decree passed in Regular
Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2015 by the learned District
Judge-5, Jalgaon, dated 25.02.2021 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
iii. The proceedings of Regular Civil Appeal No. 143/2015 is
restored to the file of District Court at Jalgaon and it is
assigned to the learned Principal District Judge, Jalgaon.
iv. The learned Principal District Judge, Jalgaon shall decide
the proceedings of Regular Civil Appeal No.143/2015
afresh on its own merits, even after resettling the issues,
including the issue of validity of notice, if necessary,
preferably within six months from the date of receipt of
this order.
Page 13 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
v. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
vi. Civil application also stands disposed of.
Registry to inform the learned Principal District Judge,
vii.
Jalgaon accordingly.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.)
JPC
Page 14 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 17 OF 2021
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5707 OF 2021
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 17 OF 2021.
Balkrishna Padmakar Joshi,
Age 72 Years, Occu: Pujari
R/o Patna Devi Temple, Patna
Tq. Chalasgaon, Dist. Jalgaon
... Appellant
VERSUS
1. Superintending Archeologist,
On behalf of Director General,
Archaeological Survey of India,
Aurangabad Circle, Bibi Ka Makbara,
Aurangabad.
2. The Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Archaeological Survey of India,
Janapath, New Delhi
... Respondents
Mr S. P. Brahme and Mr. M.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. S. G. Talhar, A.S.G. for the respondents
CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 26TH JULY, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
With the consent of both sides, this appeal is taken up
1.
for final disposal at admission stage.
Page 1 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
Factual matrix:
2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed in
Regular Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2015 by the learned District
Judge-5, Jalgaon, dated 25.02.2021, thereby remanded Regular
Civil Suit No.377 of 2005 to the trial Court for fresh decision, the
appellant/original plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
3. The subject matter is a residential block consisting of
two rooms with toilet and bathroom, situated at a distance of 30
feet away from the ancient monument of Chandikadevi Temple
at Patnadevi, Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. According to the
appellant, the suit house is in existence since 19th century.
Forefathers of the appellant has received the suit house by way
of Sanad, issued by the Collector, Khandesh in the year 1861.
The appellant is performing Archana and services to the deity
and looking after the management of the suit premises and
getting yearly allowances for the same. Respondent No.1 had
issued notification under section 3 of the Ancient Monument
and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of convenience).
Page 2 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
4. According to the respondents, the suit property is
situated within the protected zone of the monument. The
respondents issued notice to the appellant dated 27.09.2005
and called upon the appellant to remove the suit house since it
is within the protected and/or prohibited area. The appellant
challenged the notice by filing suit with two fold reliefs
declaration and injunction.
5. The respondents had contested the suit. Both the
parties have produced oral as well as documentary piece of
evidence in support of their stand. The learned trial judge was
pleased to decree the suit and declared that the notice issued by
the respondents is invalid.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court, 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in
Regular Civil Suit No. 377/2005, the respondents have preferred
an appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.143/2015 before the
District Court, Jalgaon. After considering the arguments
advanced on behalf of both sides, the learned District Judge was
pleased to allow the appeal partly and remanded the suit to the
Page 3 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
trial court for decision afresh with direction to frame one
additional issue regarding validity of the notice.
7. In the above background, the appellant/original plaintiff
is before this Court.
8. Heard Mr. S.P. Brahme, the learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. A. G. Talhar, learned Assistant Solicitor
General for the respondents. Perused the judgment and decree
passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.143/2015 by the learned
District Judge-5, Jalgaon, as well as judgment and decree
passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 377/2005 by the learned 3rd
Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon.
Submissions of learned Advocate for the Appellant:-
9. Mr. S. P. Brahme, the learned Advocate for the appellant
submitted that the order passed by the District Judge, Jalgaon
remanding the suit to the trial court for decision afresh is
contrary to the settled legal position. He submitted that the
suit cannot be remanded for fresh decision to the trial court only
because one issue on the point of validity of the notice is not
framed. The District Court, being the first appellate court and
Page 4 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
last fact finding Court, could have framed the issue on the point
of notice and answered the same on the basis of evidence
available on record. The learned counsel submitted that both
parties have produced their oral and documentary piece of
evidence before the trial Court. The trial court has framed
issues. Both the parties were aware about the issues framed by
the trial Court. The respondents did not apply for recasting of
issues. The suit went on for trial and it came to be decreed.
Mr Brahme, the learned counsel submitted that in view
10.
of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure
Code, when evidence on record is sufficient, the appellate
Court may determine the case finally even after resettling the
issues, if necessary. The District Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction by overlooking the import of Order 41 Rule 24 of
the C.P.C. He submitted that the respondents have not raised
the plea as one of the grounds in the appeal memo of not
framing proper issues. The respondents even did not raise plea
before the District Court to remand the suit to the trial court for
fresh decision by framing one additional issue on the point of
validity of the notice. Mr. Brahme, the learned Advocate
Page 5 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
further submitted that the first appellate Court has committed
jurisdictional error in remanding the suit to the trial court for
fresh decision.
11. Mr. Brahme, the learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) By L.Rs. and
another, reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 4653.
Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General for the
respondents:
12. Mr. A.G. Talhar, the learned A.S.G. for the respondents
supported the judgment and decree passed by the District
Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 143/2015. He submitted that
the learned trial court has committed an error in not framing the
issue on the point of validity of notice issued by the
Archaeological Survey Department which is a moot question.
The learned District Judge has rightly held that the trial Court
ought to have framed the issue on the point of validity of the
notice and should have recorded finding. The learned District
Judge has rightly exercised its jurisdiction vested with it under
Page 6 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
Order 41 Rule 23 of the C.P.C. The order passed by the learned
District Judge is perfectly legal in the eyes of law.
13. Having regard to the submissions of Mr. S. P. Brahme,
learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Talhar, learned
A.S.G. for the respondents, perused Order 41 Rules 23, 24 and
25 of the C.P.C.
Discussion:
14. It is undisputed position that the learned trial Judge has
framed issues on the basis of rival pleadings of both sides and
the suit went on for trial. Both the parties were aware about
the issues framed by the learned trial Judge. Both the parties
have produced their oral and documentary piece of evidence in
order to prove their respective case, keeping in mind the issues
framed by the learned trial Judge. The suit came to be decreed.
The trial Judge has held that the notice issued by the
Archaeological Survey of India is illegal and void ab initio and
pleased to grant perpetual injunction against the respondents in
the background of apprehension of demolition of the suit house/
suit property.
Page 7 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
Legal Position:
15. Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A, 24, 25 and 26 of the C.P.C.
deals with remand of cases by the appellate Court. The power
of the appellate Court/District Judge to remand the suit to the
trial court for fresh decision on merits can be exercised only
when the appellate court, in the interest of justice, feels that
remand is just and proper. The appellate court should arrive at
finding on the material available on record that the judgment
of the trial court is erroneous and is liable to be reversed or
set aside. This is the condition precedent before passing the
order of remand under Order 41 Rule 23 of the C.P.C.
16. The order of remand should not be passed as a matter
of routine. The power of remand should be sparingly exercised.
There should be always an endeavour to dispose of the case
by the appellate Court itself when commissions and omissions
made by the trial court can be corrected by the appellate Court.
17. If the provision of Order 41 Rule 23 of the C.P.C. is
studied carefully, then the legal position regarding remand of
case under Rule 23 would be crystal clear. If the lower Appellate
Page 8 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
Court /District Court felt that the proper issues are not framed
by the trial Court, it is open for the Lower Appellate
Court/District Court to frame necessary issues and decide the
matter there itself instead of asking the parties again to go
before the trial Court. In fact, such exercise of remanding the
matter second time to the trial Court that too when the lower
appellate Court itself was competent to decide the issue which
falls for its consideration was unnecessary delaying the matter
and thereby causing injustice to the parties.
18. Order 41 Rule 24 of the C.P.C. provides that where the
evidence on record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court/
District Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court/
District Court may, after resetting the issues, if necessary, finally
determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the
Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded
wholly upon some ground other than that on which the
Appellate court proceeds.
Reasons for Conclusion
19. It is noticed that the first appellate Court felt that the
Trial Court ought to have framed the issue on the point of
Page 9 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
validity of the notice in the background of Section 19 of the Act
of 1958. The lower appellate court felt that the issue on the
point of validity of the notice, though important, was not framed
by the learned trial Judge and solely on that ground, remanded
the suit for decision afresh by giving direction to the trial court
to frame issue on the point of validity of the notice. The
approach of the first appellate Court while remanding the suit
to the trial Court for afresh decision appears to be very much
erroneous. None of the parties prayed for remand of the suit to
the trial court for afresh decision.
20. The appellants before the District Court did not raise
ground for framing the additional issue on the point of validity of
notice and even not prayed for remand of the suit on that
ground. Even then, the District Court/lower appellate Court has
remanded the suit to the trial court for afresh decision on the
point of validity of the notice. The lower appellate Court has
completely overlooked the provisions of Order 41 Rule 24 of the
C.P.C. Both the parties have produced their oral and
documentary piece of evidence according to their respective
stand. If it appears to the lower appellate Court that any fact
Page 10 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
essential for decision in the suit i.e. validity of the notice was
to be determined, the lower appellate Court could have framed
an issue on the point of validity of the notice by way of
resettling the issues and recorded finding on that particular
issue coupled with other issues after examining the evidence on
record. There was no need for the lower appellate Court to
remand the suit to the trial Court for decision afresh only for
framing additional issue on point of validity of the notice when
the lower appellate court itself clothed with powers of resettling
of issues as a lower appellate Court and last fact finding court.
The order of remand should not have been passed in this case.
The lower appellate Court has the power to analyse the factual
position and can decide the issue and also the additional issues,
if any. To support my aforesaid view, I refer to a citation in the
case of Bachahan Devi and another Vs. Nagar Nigam,
Gorakhpur and others, reported in 2008 AIR 1282 (SC).
21. In case of Sayeda 5Rahimunnisa (supra), it is held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 35 as under:
"35. It is a settled principle of law that in order to
claim remand of the case to the trial court, it is
necessary for the appellant to first raise such plea and
Page 11 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
then make out a case of remand on facts. The power
of the appellate court to remand the case to
subordinate court is contained in order XLI Rule 23,
23-A and 25 of CPC. It is, therefore, obligatory upon
the appellant to bring the case under any of these
provisions before claiming a remand. The appellate
court is required to record reasons as to why it has
taken recourse to any one out of the three Rules of
Order XLI of CPC for remanding the case to the trial
court. In the absence of any ground taken by the
respondents (appellants before the first appellate
court and High Court) before the first appellate court
and the High Court as to why the remand order in
these cases is called for and if so under which Rule of
Order XLI of CPC and further in the absence of any
finding, there was no justification on the part of the
High Court to remand the case to the trial court."
22. In view of the above scenario, the order of remand to
the trial court in this case is not warranted. In the facts of the
case in hand, the order of remand will merely prolong the
proceedings between the parties. The suit is of the year 2005.
It was decided on 16.02.2015, practically after 10 years. The
proceedings of Regular Civil Appeal No. 143/2015 came to be
disposed of on 25.02.2021. It would be causing injustice to the
Page 12 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
parties asking them again to go back to the trial Court and have
afresh decision simply by framing one additional issue.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the lower appellate court is liable to be quashed
and set aside. The appeal needs to be decided by the Principal
District Judge, Jalgaon. With this, I proceed to pass following
order:
O R D E R
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and decree passed in Regular
Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2015 by the learned District
Judge-5, Jalgaon, dated 25.02.2021 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
iii. The proceedings of Regular Civil Appeal No. 143/2015 is
restored to the file of District Court at Jalgaon and it is
assigned to the learned Principal District Judge, Jalgaon.
iv. The learned Principal District Judge, Jalgaon shall decide
the proceedings of Regular Civil Appeal No.143/2015
afresh on its own merits, even after resettling the issues,
including the issue of validity of notice, if necessary,
preferably within six months from the date of receipt of
this order.
Page 13 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::
AO17-21.odt
v. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
vi. Civil application also stands disposed of.
Registry to inform the learned Principal District Judge,
vii.
Jalgaon accordingly.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.)
JPC
Page 14 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:52 :::