9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Revision petition against an order of remand, exercise of inherent power by the Judge, specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, authority on the inherent power of remand, consideration of fresh evidence. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a revision petition challenging an order of remand issued by the District Judge. The Judge tabulated three points for decision and decided them, except for requiring a finding on the yellow marked items on the suit map. The remand was made using the Court's inherent power without a clear reason, which raised concerns about the Judge's procedural approach. The issue at hand questions whether specific provisions in the Code should be followed instead of invoking inherent jurisdiction. The Judge referenced a previous case where it was held that Courts should not deviate from the procedure outlined by the legislature when specific directions are provided, as seen in Order 41, Rules 27 and 28. Despite acknowledging this view, the Judge felt bound by previous authorities that upheld the Court's inherent power of remand. However, it was emphasized that the inherent power should not be exercised when there are explicit provisions in the Code, as established by legal precedents cited in the judgment. The judgment highlighted a misconception in a previous case regarding the Court's inherent power of remand when specific provisions exist. It was clarified that the inherent jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously and should not be utilized when the legislature has clearly addressed the matter. The Judge expressed disagreement with the previous decision and emphasized the need to adhere to the statutory provisions rather than resorting to inherent powers. Ultimately, the order of remand was canceled, directing the Trial Court to provide a finding on the value of the yellow marked portions. The judgment also addressed the issue of introducing fresh evidence, stating that parties had sufficient opportunity to present evidence earlier, and allowing fresh evidence after a significant delay could lead to perjury. The District Munsif was instructed to confine the decision to the existing record, and costs of the Civil Revision Petition were to be borne by the parties involved.
|
