A limited remand does not permit reopening evidence beyond the appellate court’s directions.

The petitioner, Plaintiff No. 1 in O.S. No. 48/2010, challenged the Trial Court’s order dismissing three applications: to reopen the case and adduce further evidence under Section 151 CPC; to recall P.W.1 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC; and to receive documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC.

The suit had previously been decreed, but the Appellate Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter for the specific purpose of allowing Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2 and lead their evidence.

The petitioner sought to introduce documents concerning certain schedule properties, although the plaint did not plead that those properties were self-acquired.

Article 227 of the Constitution confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court; the Court declined to exercise it to interfere with the impugned order in the circumstances of this case.

The petitioner’s applications invoked Section 151 CPC, Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, and Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC.

The Court treated the Appellate Court’s remand directions as limited to permitting Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2 and lead evidence; it did not identify or rely on any precedent.

The High Court considered both the limited scope of the remand and the absence of pleadings that the relevant properties were self-acquired.

The documents the petitioner sought to place on record concerned properties for which the plaint contained no such pleading, and the remand was directed to provide specified opportunities to the defendants, not to reopen the suit generally.

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Trial Court’s dismissal of the applications under Article 227.

All pending applications were closed.