ISWARLAL Vs. BAL KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 6.4.99 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Baran (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Appeal No. 70/95, whereby the appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.4.95 passed by the Civil Judge (SD) and Judicial Magistrate, Shahabad, Baran in Civil Suit No. 13/92 and further directed the trial court to decide the suit afresh on the issues re -framed by the appellate court.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent -plaintiff had filed the suit before the trial court against the appellants -defendants seeking declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land, alleging interalia that the said land was purchased by the plaintiffs on 8.12.77 from the local Panchayat and a Patta was also issued in his favour by the said Panchayat at Village Kelwada. The said suit was resisted by the appellants -defendants by filing the written statement contending interalia that the plot in question was purchased by them on 10.2.77 from the said Panchayat and the said Panchayat had also issued Patta in his favour.

(3.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey for the appellants that the issues framed by the trial court were sufficient enough to resolve the controversy involved in the suit and the appellate court had again framed the issues merely changing the language of the issues and remanded the case to the trial court for retrial, without any justification. Relying upon the decision of this court in the case of Khatoon Dukhtar (D) Through Lrs. Vs. Smt. Naraini Devi and Ors. 2013(3) WLC(Raj.) 616, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the scope of remand being very limited as prescribed in Order XLI Rule 23A and Rule 25, the appellate court should not have remanded the case to the trial court.