9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against remand order under Order 43 Rule 1(u) 2. Inherent power of the Court to make a remand 3. Interpretation of the word "preliminary" in Order 41 Rule 23 4. Settlement of accounts as a preliminary point Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment involves three appeals where the lower appellate Court remanded each appeal for retrial. The appeals were filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) challenging the remand order. It was held in one appeal that no appeal lies against a remand order made not on a preliminary point. The appellant conceded that if the Court has an inherent power of remand apart from Order 41 Rule 23, there is no right of appeal. The issue was extensively argued by the appellant's counsel. 2. The main argument focused on the inherent power of the Court to make a remand beyond the conditions specified in Rule 23 of Order 41. Section 107 of the Code specifically mentions Order 41 Rule 23, but it does not limit the power of remand to the conditions prescribed by the Code. The enactment of Section 151 suggests that the legislature contemplated the exercise of powers not expressly conferred by the rules. Previous decisions by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts supported the view that courts have inherent powers of remand beyond the specific rules. 3. Another argument raised was regarding the interpretation of the word "preliminary" in Order 41 Rule 23. The definition of "preliminary" was discussed, emphasizing that it connotes a determination not affecting the merits of the case. The argument was supported by a previous judgment by Muthuswami Aiyar, J., which defined the term. The court agreed with the liberal construction of the term "preliminary." 4. The judgment also addressed the issue of whether a settlement of accounts as an agent is binding on a party as a partner, considering it as a preliminary point. The court disagreed with this proposition, stating that it is a piece of evidence rather than a point collateral to the merits of the case. 5. In one of the appeals, it was argued that the remand was unnecessary, and the procedure adopted by the appellate Court was questioned. However, the court found that the reversal of the judgment with a direction to admit evidence did not constitute a disposal on a preliminary point. Another appeal was dismissed as it did not involve a remand on a preliminary point. 6. Ultimately, the court dismissed all three appeals with costs, citing the reasons discussed during the proceedings and the arguments presented by the respective counsels.
|
