Appellate Court Must Decide Suit on Merits Under Order XLI Rule 24 if Evidence Is Sufficient

The Appellants/Plaintiffs claimed to be tenants of property Nos. 5483 and 5484 at Sadar Bazar, Delhi, since 1964.

They alleged that Defendant No. 1, an employee hired in 1980 to manage license fee collections from businessmen using the premises, began misappropriating funds and eventually trespassed into the property with other defendants.

The Plaintiffs sought a perpetual injunction and recovery of Rs. 1,80,000.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 05.05.2017, holding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their tenancy beyond the initial 11-month period.

On appeal, the First Appellate Court (ADJ) reversed the factual findings, noting that the Defendants' father was merely a "Munshi" (clerk) and that the Plaintiffs had a better title/right to possession.

However, despite these findings, the ADJ remanded the case back to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication.

The Appellants challenged this remand order before the High Court.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in remanding the matter under Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A, or 25 of the CPC when the evidence on record was sufficient to determine the suit finally?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court should have finally decided the case under Order 41 Rule 24 of the CPC rather than remitting it to the Trial Court?

Order 41 Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandates that if the evidence on record is sufficient, the Appellate Court should determine the case finally rather than remanding it.

Remand is an exception and an unwarranted remand merely elongates litigation, as established in Shiva Kumar & Ors. v. Sharanabasappa & Ors. (2021).

Remand should not be used to reopen concluded trials or where the court can decide the matter on a preponderance of probabilities, as emphasized in Sirajudheen v. Zeenath & Ors. (2023).

The High Court observed that the First Appellate Court had already engaged in a detailed appreciation of the evidence and had arrived at categorical findings of fact.

Specifically, the ADJ had determined that the Respondents were trespassers with no lawful authority, whereas the Appellants had established a superior right to possession based on witness testimony (DW-6) from previous litigation (Suit No. 73/2012).

The High Court reasoned that since the ADJ had already adjudicated the material issues on merits and no fresh or additional issues were framed, there was no legal "necessity" for a retrial.

Following the mandate of Order 41 Rule 24, the High Court found that the ADJ committed a material illegality by failing to exercise its jurisdiction to pass a final decree when the record was sufficient for a conclusion.

It held that the First Appellate Court's approach was erroneous as it shirked its duty to finally adjudicate the dispute despite having sufficient evidence.

The Court directed the parties to appear before the District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, on 03.07.2026, with an instruction for the First Appellate Court to finally decide the appeal on its merits within four months.