OXLI R25 CPC | Appellate Court Not Obligated To Remand Matter Back For Fresh Trial Merely Because It Framed New Issues: MP High Court

Opining that the case in hand had to be governed as per the provisions under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC, Justice Pranay Verma observed-

In the present case Rule 24 would not be applicable since it is not a case of mere resettling of the issues and a case where the appellate Court has felt it necessary to proceed on some ground other than the ground on which the trial Court had proceeded. The appellate Court has not felt that the evidence on record is sufficient to enable it to pronounce the judgment. Rather the matter is governed by Rule 25 as the appellate Court has recorded a finding that the trial Court has omitted to frame and try issues which were essential to the right decision of the suit upon merits. It is for that reason the appellate Court has framed fresh issues and has deleted issues which it felt had wrongly been framed by the trial Court and which did not arise for determination from pleadings of the parties.

Facts of the case were that the Appellant/ Plaintiff had instituted a suit against the Respondents/ Defendants for declaration that the sale deeds executed with respect to the suit land was not binding on him. He had also sought for permanent injunction, thereby restraining the Defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit land and from alienating the same in favour of any third person. The trial court decided the matter in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff against which the Respondents/Defendants preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Respondents/Defendants moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for taking additional documents on record. They also raised an objection regarding the issues being improperly framed by the trial court. The lower appellate court allowed the said, deleted two of the issues framed by the trial court and framed additional issues. Thereafter, it set aside the judgement and decree passed by the trial court and remanded the matter back to be decided afresh. Aggrieved, the Appellant/Plaintiff moved the Court to challenge the decision of the lower appellate court.

The Appellant submitted before the Court that the lower appellate court totally ignored the provisions under Order XLI CPC. It was argued that the appeal ought to have been decided as per the provisions of Order XLI Rule 24 CPC by hearing the parties on merit. It was further pointed out that, alternately, as per the provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC, the lower appellate court should have directed for a limited remand for consideration of only the newly framed issues. It was also contended that there was no adherence to the provisions Order XLI Rule 28 and Rule 29 CPC regarding additional documents being taken on record. Therefore, it was prayed that the impugned decision be set aside.

Per contra, the Respondents/Defendants argued that the remand was ordered as per the provisions under Order XLI CPC. It was submitted that the issues framed by the trial court did not at all arise for consideration which resulted in a mistrial. Furthermore, since the lower appellate court had framed new issues and had taken additional documents on record, the matter was rightly remanded back to the trial court to be decided afresh. Thus, it was asserted that the impugned order did not require interference by the Court.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the submission of the Appellant/Plaintiff that the lower appellate court should not have side aside the judgment and decree in the instant case. It observed-

The appellate Court has not complied with the procedure prescribed under Rule 25. It ought to have referred the matter to the trial Court with a direction for it to take additional evidence on the issues newly framed and to try such issues and return the evidence to it together with findings thereon and the reasons therefore. It should have thereafter proceeded in terms of Rule 26 and determined the appeal finally. The appellate Court merely for the reason for reframing of new issues was not justified in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanding the matter back to it.

With respect to the decision of the lower appellate court to take additional documents on record, the Court held that while doing so under Order XLI Rule 28 CPC, it could have specified the points to which the additional evidence was to be confined by trial court. There was no need to set aside the judgment and decree merely because additional documents were taken on record-

As per Rule 28 the appellate Court could have taken the additional evidence on record or directed the Trial Court to take such evidence and to send it when taken to it. It could have specified the points to which the additional evidence was to be confined. Only for the reason that additional documents had been taken on record, it did not necessitate setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanding the matter back to it with liberty to both the parties to adduce additional evidence and also to lead oral evidence in that regard. The provisions of Rule 28 and 29 have wholly been omitted to be taken into consideration by the appellate Court. Merely because additional documents had been taken on record, wholesale remand to the trial Court after setting aside its judgment and decree was wholly unwarranted.

With the aforesaid observations, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate court was set aside with the following directions-

i. Deleted issues framed by the trial court and the new issues framed by lower appellate court to be maintained

ii. Matter to proceed as per the provisions under Order XLI Rule 25 and 26 CPC by the lower appellate court

iii. Order to take additional documents on record to be maintained; the lower appellate court to proceed in terms of Order XLI Rule 28 and 29 CPC regarding the same.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal was partly allowed.