Appellate Courts should not remand cases when sufficient evidence exists to decide the matter on merits.

The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit in 1999 for recovery of rent and possession of a shop, alleging a landlord-tenant relationship based on an 11-month oral tenancy from 01.05.1988

The defendant-respondent contested this, claiming an existing written tenancy since 1986 and asserting that the suit was filed merely to increase rent

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on 27.09.2005, ordering eviction and payment of arrears with interest

On appeal, the First Appellate Court (FAC) quashed the decree on 05.02.2018 and remanded the matter back for a fresh trial, primarily on the grounds that Issue No. 3 (regarding tender of rent via money order) was not properly adjudicated

The plaintiff challenged this remand order before the High Court.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 96 and Order XLI of the CPC by remanding the matter for a fresh trial when the entire evidence was already on record

2. Whether a wholesale remand of a suit is permissible when a specific issue (Issue No. 3) was allegedly left undecided or improperly appreciated by the Trial Court

The Court applied the provisions of Order XLI of the CPC, specifically Rule 23 (remand on preliminary points), Rule 23-A (remand if re-trial is considered necessary), and Rule 25 (power to frame issues and refer for trial while retaining the appeal)

It relied on Ashwin Kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel, which held that Appellate Courts should not ordinarily remand cases if material is available to decide the appeal themselves

It further cited Saseendran v. K.M. Cherian, establishing that the FAC, as a final court of facts, should call for findings on specific issues under Rule 25 rather than setting aside the entire decree if some issues were left unanswered

The court also highlighted Order XLI Rule 24, which mandates the Appellate Court to determine a case finally if the evidence on record is sufficient

The High Court found that the FAC’s remand order was mechanical and lacked a valid legal basis under Order XLI CPC

The Court reasoned that since the Trial Court had already decided the suit on merits and all documentary evidence (Ex. D-1 to D-21) was part of the record, the FAC was statutorily obligated under Rule 24 to re-appreciate the evidence and decide the matter itself

The Court noted that even if Issue No. 3 regarding the money order was not sufficiently addressed, the proper course of action under Rule 25 was to call for a finding on that specific issue from the Trial Court while keeping the appeal pending, rather than ordering a de novo trial

The Court emphasized that a remand after 19 years of litigation would cause manifest prejudice and defeat the goal of expeditious justice

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the remand order dated 05.02.2018. The matter was remitted back to the Additional District Judge No. 1, Kotputli, with directions to decide Civil Appeal No. 3/2006 on its merits within six months, using the evidence already available on record