NIRBHEY SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order disposes of SAO Nos. 16 and 17 of 1990 since common question of law and facts arise for determination therein.

(2.) THE plaintiff/appellant has come up in second appeal against the order of the first Appellate Court who after permitting the defendant/respondents to amend their written statement set aside the judgment and decree of the trial judge whereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for a declaration that the sale deeds dated October 31, 1985 and October 7, 1985 were invalid and a decree for joint possession with regard to land measuring 37 kanals 16 marlas passed in their favour was set aside. The Appellate Judge after referring to the pleadings of the parties disposed of the application filed by the defendant/respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code whereby the following amendment was sought in the written statement :-

(3.) THE order does not indicate why the appellate Judge thought it convenient to set aside the well considered judgment and decree of the trial judge passed after contest. The suit was contested on various issues. The parties were allowed full opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter the suit was disposed of on merits. The appellate Judge can set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remand the suit for fresh trial only under the provisions of Order 41 rules 23 and 23-A of the Civil Procedure Code (for brevity hereinafter to be referred to as C.P.C.). Rule 23 of Order 41 CPC says that where the Court has disposed of the suit on preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal, the Appellate Court may, if it thinks fit, by order remand the case, and may further direct the issue and issues to be disposed of after permitting the parties to lead evidence. Rule 23-A of Order 41 C.P.C. says that where the suit has been disposed of otherwise than on preliminary point, and the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers as it has under rule 23 of Order 41 C.P.C. The Appellate Judge has not mentioned in the order as to on what ground he thought it fit to reverse the decree of the trial judge. The decree of the trial court has to be set aside under each issue. The reversal is not a matter of mere formality but of substance. The apex Court deprecated the practice of remand consequent on amendment of the pleadings in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mamomed Jaffer Mohammed Hussein and another, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 5 and held thus :-