SITARAM Vs. DAMODAR PRASAD PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a cross -objection in this appeal which I hold merit less because Shri Dubey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent has himself fairly conceded that he is not supporting the impugned order of remand.

(2.) IT is really surprising that by the impugned order, the lower appellate Court has remanded the suit for retrial and has forced upon the plaintiff an amendment. What business it had to do so when it had no jurisdiction to do so. Indeed, it is an enigma for me. On referring to the plaint, what I rind is that the plaintiff has very clearly pleaded his case and with the plaint he filed a map in which the property in question was marked in red ink. That was described as the suit property in respect of which recovery of possession was sought. There was obviously, therefore, no scope for the lower appellate Court to make a direction in the remand order that plaintiff had to make his case clear as to which part of the property shown in the map was the suit property of which he sought recovery of possession. I have no doubt at all as indeed very validly, rightly and fairly conceded by Shri Dubey too, that the impugned order of remand is illegal and improper. That is passed without jurisdiction for the obvious reason that a Court cannot force party to seek any relief or any particular relief in a particular manner. The Court has no jurisdiction to make direction to any party in a pending litigation to amend pleadings as the Court requires when there is no scope obviously for such amendment.