RAJARAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 23/3/2022 passed in RCS No.15A/10 by 11th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior, whereby the application moved under Sec. 151of CPC by the plaintiff/petitioner was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the matter has been remanded by the appellate court with a direction to permit the parties to adduce the evidence in respect of the documents filed before the appellate court along with the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC and, therefore, the permission cannot be granted to exhibit a document which was already on record and the petitioner omitted to exhibit the same at the time of original proceedings.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document was filed by the petitioner and an application was moved under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act seeking permission to adduce the secondary evidence in respect of that document as the original was lost. That application was allowed by order dtd. 16/7/2012 but inadvertently the document was not exhibited before the trial Court and now when the matter has been remanded to the trial Court to decide afresh by the appellate court the petitioner be permitted to exhibit the document which is already available on record and in respect of which the permission has already been granted. He prays for issuance of necessary direction and setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/Union of India and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 and the learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 submit that with the specific direction the case was remanded by the appellate court and, therefore, the trial Court cannot travel beyond the scope. The counsels submit that the appellate court has remanded the matter for recording the evidence in respect of the documents filed along with application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, and therefore, the trial Court is justified in declining to permit the petitioner to exhibit the document which was already on record. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Apex Court delivered in the matter of Shivshankara and Anr. vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char reported in AIR 2023 SC 1780, wherein the Apex Court held that if the matter is remanded with certain observations the trial Court is under obligation to comply with the order of remand and cannot not act contrary to the order of remand. An order of remand has to be followed in its true spirit. He relied on para 7 of the judgment which reads as under:-