IQBAL Vs. MAHILA RASIDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2011 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Tikamgarh in COS No.50- A/09, whereby his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint has been dismissed.

(3.) Having heard the counsel of the petitioner on admission at length keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the impugned order along with the averments of the petition. It is apparent from the impugned order that the impugned suit is pending before the aforesaid Court after remanding the same by the appellate Court to decide afresh in accordance with the direction of such Court and in such premises, I am of the considered view that after remanding the matter, the trial Court did not have any authority to consider any application or circumstance contrary to the direction of the remand order of the appellate Court. In the case at hand it is also apparent from the impugned order that the amendment application which has been moved by the petitioner before the trial Court on the same subject matter and the facts one amendment application was filed before the appellate Court when the appeal was pending and on consideration such application was dismissed by the appellate Court and after setting aside the earlier judgment of the trial Court the case has been remitted back to the trial Court to decide afresh with some direction as stated above. The order of dismissal of aforesaid application by the appellate Court is having binding effect before the trial Court against the party as res-judicata till the extent of interlocutory stage, as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Satyadhyan Ghosal and others Vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another, 1960 AIR(SC) 941.