2017 (4) TMI 1447 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the defendants appeal and thereby justified in restoring the judgment/decree of the Trial Court which had dismissed the suit? - HELD THAT - The only error which the first Appellate Court committed was that it went on to record the findings on merits. In our view, it was not necessary to do so while passing the order of remand. The reason is that once the first Appellate Court formed an opinion to remand the case, it was required to give reasons in support of the remand order as to why the remand is called for in the case. Indeed, the remand was made only to enable the Trial Court to decide the case on merits. Therefore, there was no need to discuss much less record findings on several issues on merits. It was totally uncalled for. The High Court committed jurisdictional error when it also again examined the case on merits and set aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court and restored the judgment of the Trial Court. The High Court, should not have done this for the simple reason that it was only examining the legality of the remand order in an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code. Indeed, once the High Court came to a conclusion that the remand order was bad in law then it could only remand the case to the first Appellate Court with a direction to decide the first appeal on merits. It is well settled law that the jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits can be exercised by the Appellate Court only when the appeal is filed under Section 96 or 100 of the Code against the decree. Such was not the case here - the High Court had no jurisdiction to consider much less deciding the entire case of the parties on merits in such appeal. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1) Appeal against judgment and order of High Court
2) Remand of case by first Appellate Court
3) Jurisdiction of High Court in considering the case on merits

Analysis:
1) The appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and order of the High Court, which set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge. The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in allowing the defendants' appeal and restoring the judgment of the Trial Court, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

2) The first Appellate Court allowed the plaintiff to file additional evidence and remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh trial on merits. The Supreme Court found that the first Appellate Court was justified in remanding the case under Order 41 Rule 23-A of the Code, but it erred in recording findings on merits. The High Court, however, overstepped its jurisdiction by examining the case on merits and setting aside the first Appellate Court's judgment, which was beyond the scope of the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code.

3) The High Court's decision to reverse the first Appellate Court's finding on allowing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 was deemed incorrect by the Supreme Court. The first Appellate Court's decision to permit additional evidence was upheld as necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the first Appellate Court's judgment with modifications, granting liberty to the defendants to file rebuttal evidence before the Trial Court for a fair trial.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal issues involved in the judgment, focusing on the appeal process, remand of the case, and the jurisdiction of the High Court in deciding the case on merits.