Open remand was justified where the trial judgment relied on irrelevant considerations.

The plaintiffs challenged a hibanama (deed of gift) executed by appellant no. 1, Monija Bibi, in favour of appellant no. 2 and her other sons.

They alleged that the property, although purchased in Monija’s name, was intended for the benefit of their predecessor-in-interest, who was illiterate or semi-literate and verbally and auditorily challenged; they claimed the subsequent gift was fraudulent.

The trial court dismissed the suit.

On appeal, the first appellate court ordered an open remand, citing evidence of the predecessor’s illiteracy, the defendants’ failure to produce the original hibanama, and Monija’s avoidance of the witness box despite having appeared as a witness in a related miscellaneous proceeding.

The defendants appealed against the remand order.

1. Whether the first appellate court was justified in ordering an open remand of the suit on the grounds identified in its judgment.

2. Whether the impugned remand order disclosed an arguable issue or illegality warranting appellate interference.

The Court dismissed the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It upheld the first appellate court’s decision to remit the suit for fresh evidence in light of the identified evidentiary concerns and the opportunity thereby afforded to both parties.

The Court considered the first appellate court’s findings that evidence supported the predecessor’s illiteracy, that the defendants—who would ordinarily be expected to have custody of the gift deed—had not produced its original despite the challenge to it, and that Monija’s stated reason for not testifying was contradicted by her appearance as a witness in a related proceeding.

It concluded that the appellate court had properly chosen remand, rather than finally disposing of the suit, to allow both sides to adduce further evidence and to achieve complete justice.

The trial court’s discussion of matters considered extraneous to the dispute further supported the decision to remit the case.

It dismissed FMAT 320 of 2025 under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC and consequentially dismissed CAN 1 of 2025, with no order as to costs.