9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand but a limited remand. It is not permissible for the learned Trial Court to allow the parties to reopen other matters and accept another document. A similar view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramabai [ 1996 (1) TMI 486 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ], wherein it was held that the learned Trial Court had limited jurisdiction in terms of the remand order. It can decide the matter only as per the directions issued by the Appellate Court. The jurisdiction of the Trial Court in case of remand depends upon the order of the remand. The Trial Court cannot enlarge its jurisdiction by allowing the parties to reopen the matters which are not remanded to it. In the present case, the question whether the cheque was issued in discharge of the legal liability or not was never remanded to the learned Trial Court and no evidence could have been admitted on this aspect - the scope of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is misplaced because the Court is not concerned with the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. but the jurisdiction of the Trial Court after the order of the remand. Once the jurisdiction was restricted by the remand order it could not have been enlarged by referring to the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrate concerned. Consequently after allowing Cr.M.P. No. 283 of 2019, and, also necessarily hence, after quashing the impugned order, for, enabling, the, hereinafter facilitation(s) vis-a-vis the remainder Court, this Court, make an order of remand to the remandee Magistrate, to, after his ensuring, the tendering, before it, of the testamentary disposition, executed by the deceased Shoba Ram, vis-a-vis, one Kiran Thakur, and, also after permitting the accused, to, adduce evidence in rebuttal thereto, to thereafter make a fresh decision, upon, the apposite complaint. 3. The accused approached the Hon ble Supreme Court of India by filing an SLP (Crl.) No. 11018 of 2019; however, SLP was dismissed on 20.6.2022. 4. During the Trial before the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to bring on record the document alleged to have been executed by deceased Shobha Ram on 20.12.2023 (sic). The complainant opposed the application; however, the application was allowed by learned JMFC, Manali on 11.9.2023 and the matter was listed for leading additional evidence. 5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1075 of 2023, decided on 26.2.2024 in support of his submission. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. It is apparent from the order passed by this Court that this Court had directed the learned Magistrate to receive the evidence of testamentary disposition executed by Shobha Ram vis- -vis Kiran Thakur, permit the accused to adduce evidence in rebuttal thereto and thereafter make a fresh decision on the complaint. Thus, the learned Magistrate was only required to take evidence regarding the testamentary disposition from the complainant and any rebuttal evidence from the accused. 11. It was submitted that since this Court had also directed the making of the fresh decision, therefore, it was not a case of a limited remand but a case of open remand. This is not acceptable. Since the earlier order holding the complainant not to be the legally wedded wife was set aside and she was permitted to lead evidence regarding the testamentary disposition in her favour, it was necessary to order that a fresh decision be taken. The earlier order would cease to have any effect after the evidence of testamentary disposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot already on record. The learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity and illegality and as such this revision is accepted and the order passed by the Civil Judge, Bharatpur on 21st Jan. 1985 is set aside. ( Emphasis supplied ) 13. The scope of the remand orders was discussed as under : - 5. In Scientific Instruments Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (Valuation Section) AIR 1976 Cal 38 the Appellate Collector under the Customs Act remanded the matter with the direction that Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act should be applied but the Assistant Collector passed an order holding that the determination should be on the basis of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. It was held that on remand the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector was limited by the order of the appellate authority and determination should be on the basis of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. It was held that on remand the Assistant Collector acted in excess of his jurisdiction which was limited by the order of the appellate authority and it was his duty to comply with it. As the order was contrary to the direction of the appellate authority, it was held to be illegal and unjustified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the Appellate Court. It was observed:- 8. The basic question, therefore, which is the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is whether it was open or was permissible to the trial Court to by-pass the directions under the order of remand and the reason for which its earlier judgment and decree of dismissal of suit was set aside and then further to decree the suit on the same evidence. It would amount to allowing the premium to the plaintiff for his abusing the process of law. The plaintiff sought the setting aside of the judgment from the appellate Court by praying the amendment of the plaint but he later on reamended the plaint by sidetracking the order of remand. The trial Court ignoring the order of remand, without there being any further change in the evidence or circumstances, decreed the suit. The trial Court in this manner fell prey to the unwholly design of the plaintiff-respondent and the appellate Court also failed to consider this glaring illegality committed by the trial Court. 9. Under the order of remand passed by the appellate Court, the learned trial Court had limited jurisdiction depending upon the terms of the remand order. It could decide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matters finally disposed of by the order of remand cannot be reopened when the matter comes back after the final order upon remand on appeal or otherwise to the Court remanding the matter. If no appeal is preferred against the order of remand, the matters finally decided in the order of remand can neither be subsequently re-agitated before the Court to which remanded nor before the Court where the order passed upon remand is challenged in appeal or otherwise from such order. The Court, to which the matter is remanded, has to act within the order of remand. It is not open to such Court or authority to do anything but to carry out the terms of the remand even if it considers it to be not in accordance with law. Once a finality is reached, it cannot be reopened. Even if the Supreme Court holds otherwise even then the Court cannot go back on its earlier order of remand. It can only be done through a review of the order of remand. It cannot be achieved in the appeal against the order passed upon remand. ( Emphasis supplied ) 16. The Delhi High Court also took a similar view in Om Prakash Sharma (supra) and held that the scope of limited remand cannot be enlarged by the Court. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction has been filed. Reference may be had to Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava [(2001) 2 SCC 604], G.C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin [2002 (1) RCJ 53 SC], Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal [(1997) 4 SCC 413] and N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan [(2001) 6 SCC 473]. In a result, admittedly there is no suitable alternative accommodation available to the landlord and members of his family dependent on him. The judgment under challenge is set aside and the petition under Section 14(i)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is allowed. RC.REV 37/2004 is accordingly allowed and disposed of. A decree of eviction from the premises in question is passed. Six months is granted to the tenant to vacate the premises in question. (Emphasis supplied) 17. The Hon ble Supreme Court also held in Shiv Shankar (supra) that the Court to which the case is remanded has to comply with the order of remand and it cannot act contrary to the same. It was observed:- 7. Before proceeding with the matter further, we think it appropriate to consider the impact of such an order of remand as it would certainly deconvolute consideration of this appeal. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
