Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Remand in 1993 Land Dispute, Restores Appeal for Merits Decision on Existing Record

The appellant challenged the first appellate court’s judgment setting aside the trial court’s decree in his favour in a title-eviction suit and remanding the suit for fresh decision.

The trial court had assessed oral and documentary evidence and found that the land covered by the defendant’s title deed was distinct from the suit property.

The appellant argued that the first appellate court had not addressed that finding and had ordered an impermissible wholesale remand despite its ability to decide the appeal on the existing record.

The respondent supported the remand, relying on alleged defects in the pleadings and evidence.

Order XLI Rule 23 CPC permits remand where the trial court decided the suit on a preliminary point and that decision is reversed; Rule 23A permits remand where the trial court decided the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, its decree is reversed, and retrial is considered necessary.

Under Rule 24, where the evidence is sufficient, the appellate court may determine the case finally; under Rule 25, it may frame an omitted issue and refer it to the trial court while retaining the appeal.

In *P. Purushottam Reddy v. Pratap Steels Ltd.*, (2002) 2 SCC 686, the Supreme Court cautioned that wholesale remand should be made only within the governing rules and that unwarranted remands prolong litigation.

*J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole*, (2017) 14 SCC 207, explains the distinct functions of Rules 23, 23A and 25 and confirms that, in an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u), a court finding the remand unlawful should return the matter to the first appellate court for decision on merits.

An appellate court reversing a trial judgment must engage with the trial court’s findings and give reasons, as stated in *Murthy v. C. Saradambal*, (2022) 3 SCC 209.

Remand must not be used merely to give a party another opportunity to fill evidentiary gaps.

The High Court found that the first appellate court identified no clear points for determination and gave no reasoned assessment of the trial court’s findings, including its finding on the identity of the suit land.

Its general criticism that the trial court had relied on “cherry picked” evidence did not justify setting aside the decree and ordering a retrial.

The appellate court had the powers under Rule 24 to decide the appeal on the record or, if an essential factual issue had been omitted, under Rule 25 to refer that issue while retaining the appeal.

The remand was therefore not shown to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23A or to be otherwise necessary.

Consistent with *J. Balaji Singh*, the High Court confined itself to reviewing the remand order and did not decide the underlying title dispute.

It set aside the first appellate court’s judgment and decree dated 23 August 2023 and 31 August 2023, respectively, and restored Title Appeal No. 13 of 2005 to that court for fresh consideration on merits.

The miscellaneous appeal was allowed and disposed of.