The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an order of remand passed by the District Judge, Nagpur, in a suit concerning the specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land.
Justice Pravin S. Patil held that the lower appellate court had rightly exercised its discretion under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as the trial court had failed to frame a crucial issue whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist or not and whether he was entitled to purchase agricultural land without prior permission from the competent authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.
The Court observed that such an issue could not be ignored, especially when specifically pleaded in the defendants’ written statement.
The plaintiff had challenged the remand order contending that the District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the trial court to frame additional issues instead of deciding the appeal on the existing record. Rejecting this contention, the High Court noted that the appellate court’s power to remand is well-recognised when the omission to frame an essential issue affects the just decision of the case.
The Court referred to J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole, (2017) 14 SCC 207, where the Supreme Court held that the remand is permissible when certain issues essential to the right decision of the suit were not framed by the trial court.
While upholding the remand, the Court imposed costs of ₹15,000 on the defendants, to be paid to appellant within 15 days, for their lack of diligence before the trial court.
Appearances
Shri O.A. Ghare, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri A.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents.
