Setting aside abatement of a necessary party necessitates remand for fresh adjudication of property shares.

The dispute involves a Joint Hindu Family business and properties originally belonging to five brothers: Dhanraj, Dwarkadas, Madanlal, Prakashchand, and Kishanlal

A family arrangement/partition was executed via an arbitral award on 21.12.1963, which was later set aside on technical grounds (insufficient stamp/registration), though parties allegedly remained in separate possession

A civil suit for declaration and injunction was filed in 1976

In 1993, the court records were destroyed in a fire, leading to a reconstruction of the file in 1996

During pendency, the original plaintiff, Madanlal, died in 1992, and the Trial Court held the suit abated against him for failure to bring legal representatives (LRs) on record

On 14.12.2018, the Trial Court decreed the suit for other branches but denied relief to Madanlal’s branch due to abatement

Following a Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court on 28.04.2025 set aside the abatement, substituted Madanlal’s LRs, and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication

1. Whether a retrial is necessary and the case is liable to be remanded for fresh adjudication under Order 41 Rule 23 or Rule 23A of the CPC, 1908?

2. Whether, despite the arbitral award dated 21.12.1963 being held invalid for want of registration, the subsequent conduct of the parties and the family arrangement acted upon by them could form the basis of a declaration of rights?

Order 41 Rule 23A of the CPC, which empowers an appellate court to remand a case for retrial when a decree is reversed and a fresh trial is considered necessary

The principle that bringing LRs on record at one stage of a suit enures for all subsequent stages (Rangubai Kom Sankar Jagtap v. Sunderbai Bhratar Sakharam Jedhe)

The principle that prayers for setting aside abatement should be construed liberally to ensure hearing on merits (Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini)

The principle that remand should only be exercised when a judgment does not satisfactorily dispose of the case and a retrial is essential ex debito justitiae (P. Purushottam Reddy v. Pratap Steels Ltd.)

The High Court observed that the Supreme Court's order setting aside the abatement effectively revived the proceedings to the stage prior to Madanlal’s death in 1992

Because the suit had previously been treated as abated, Madanlal's LRs were deprived of the opportunity to lead evidence or participate in the trial, resulting in an incomplete adjudication of the specific shares mentioned in "Schedule D" of the plaint

Furthermore, the Court identified significant material discrepancies in the property descriptions (Khasra numbers and Rakba/area) between the original 1976 schedules, the 2003 reconstructed schedules, and the 2018 amendments

The Court reasoned that these inconsistencies regarding the identity and extent of the suit land could not be resolved without fresh evidentiary examination

Since the foundational rights of one branch remained un-adjudicated, the Court determined that a limited remand for fresh adjudication was mandatory to prevent injustice

The case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to allow the parties to file amendments and lead additional evidence

The Trial Court was directed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within eight months, holding trials on a day-to-day basis without unnecessary adjournments

Issue No. 2 regarding the validity of the family arrangement was left open for the Trial Court’s determination upon remand

Case records were ordered to be scanned before transmission to prevent further loss