9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that he had purchased the suit house from Baboo Lal. It was alleged that in the suit house at that relevant time one Devi Shankar was occupying two rooms. Later on those two rooms having been vacated by Devi Shankar, it was'alleged in the plaint that the two rooms were taken possession of by defendant Babu Lal. Since possession was not being handedover, hence the suit was filed. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by the trial Court and, therefore, an appeal bearing No. 89-A/71 was preferred by the respondent-plaintiff. The plaintiff had later on moved an application in the appeal under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. stating that since one Panat was in actual possession of the rooms and was not impleaded as defendant in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside by the appellate Court on the ground that the plaint was required to be amended for impleading one Panat as defendant. After the amendment of the plaint, but before the trial Court could proceed to record the further evidence in the light of remand order, the plaintiff-respondent again amended his plaint by dropping Panat from the array of defendants and brought the suit back to its original position which had existed before the order of remand was passed whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit was set aside. The trial Court thereafter decreed the suit on the same evidence and in the same circumstances in which it was earlier dismissed by it. The basic question, therefore, which is the substantial quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned trial Court. Such course was not open to the trial Court. In doing so, it had proceeded against the direction of the superior Court issued under the order of remand. It is well settled that the Court to which the case is remanded has to comply with the order of remand. Acting contrary to the order of remand is contrary to law. In almost similar circumstance, it was held by this Court in Rukhmanand v. Deenbandh 1971 MPLJ (SN) 159 that: It is settled law that when a suit is remanded for a decision afresh with certain specific directions, the jurisdiction of the trial Court after remand depends upon the terms of the order of remand and the trial Court cannot either consider matters other than those specified in the remand order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
