SRI RAMA AGENCIES Vs. MACHANI AND MACHANI AGROCHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein filed O.S.No.163 of 2001 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against the appellant, for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,21,819=50 ps., towards the cost of pesticides, supplied to the appellant. In the written-statement filed by the appellant, existence of transactions of supply of pesticides, on various occasions, was admitted, and it was contended that there are no outstanding dues. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment dated 17-02-2003. Thereupon, the respondent filed A.S.No.52 of 2003 in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal, according to law. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (u) of C.P.C.

(2.) Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the lower Appellate Court directed remand of the case, as though it is a matter of course. He contends that the observations and findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court warranted dismissal of the appeal; whereas the discretion vested in it, under Rule 23-A of Order XLI C.P.C., was used, without there being any factual basis for it.

(3.) Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the lower Appellate Court had undertaken extensive discussion of the pleadings and evidence on record, and expressed the view, that it is a fit case for remand. He contends that the appellant cannot be said to have suffered any prejudice, on account of the remand. The only question that arises for consideration in this C.M.A. is, as to whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court.