The High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld a decision of the First Appellate Court to remand a civil suit to the Trial Court, observing that once an appellate court forms an opinion to remand a case based on cogent reasons, such as the non-joinder of necessary parties, it is not required to adjudicate on the merits of the dispute.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, presiding over the case, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirming the judgment passed by the District Judge, Patan. The High Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) specifically excludes the non-joinder of a necessary party from the rule that prevents the reversal of a decree for procedural irregularities.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 08A/2021) filed by the heirs of Late Bholaram Sahu (Hemant Kumar Sahu and others) against Ashwani Kumar Sahu and others. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title, permanent injunction, and partition of ancestral agricultural lands situated in Village Bohardih.
The plaintiffs contended that Bholaram and Ashwani Kumar were real brothers and that the disputed property, totaling 7.940 hectares and 6.30 hectares across several Khasras, was joint family property. They claimed a $1/2$ share, asserting that no formal partition had taken place and that Ashwani Kumar had illegally sold portions of the land to a third party (Defendant No. 2).
The defendants contested the suit, arguing that a prior partition had occurred following litigation in 2005-06 and 2017. They further contended that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that Ashwani Kumar was the lawful owner of the lands he sold.
The Trial Court (Civil Judge, Class-I, Patan) allowed the suit on August 14, 2023, declaring the plaintiffs entitled to a $1/2$ share and voiding the sale deeds executed by Ashwani Kumar.
First Appellate Court’s Decision
The defendants challenged this decree before the District Judge, Patan. During the appeal, the defendants filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to produce additional documents, including certified copies of previous court judgments and orders.
The Appellate Court allowed the application for additional evidence and set aside the Trial Court’s judgment. It remanded the matter with directions to implead Sumitra Bai and Kamla Bai (sisters of Bholaram and Ashwani) as necessary parties and to decide the suit afresh after hearing all parties on the new evidence.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the Appellants (Plaintiffs), Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, argued that the remand was “summary and mechanical.” He contended that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the clinching evidence produced by the plaintiffs and should have decided the appeal on its merits rather than remanding it. He relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad Vs. Sunder Singh (2008) and Sirajudheen Vs. Zeenath & Ors (2024).
Conversely, counsel for the Respondents (Defendants), Mr. Alok Bakshi and Ms. Mitisha Kotecha, argued that the Appellate Court exercised its judicial discretion correctly. They submitted that once the court found the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties and allowed additional evidence, a remand was the proper course to ensure a fair trial for all involved, including the newly added parties.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court focused on the necessity of joining all legal heirs in a partition suit. It noted that the defendant had identified Sumitra and Kamla as sisters of the parties who were also legal heirs of Laxmi Bai, yet they were not made parties to the suit.
Referring to Section 99 of the CPC, the Court noted:
“Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.”
The Court held that since the case involved the non-joinder of necessary parties, the protection against reversing decrees for irregularities did not apply.
On the issue of remanding the case after allowing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27, the High Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in J. Balaji Singh Vs. Diwakar Cole & Ors (2017), which states:
“Once the first appellate Court formed an opinion to remand the case, it was required to give reasons in support of the remand order as to why the remand is called for… Therefore, there was no need to discuss much a less record findings on several issues on merits. It was totally uncalled for.”
Justice Guru observed that the First Appellate Court had assigned sufficient reasons—primarily the non-joinder of parties and the introduction of significant new documentary evidence. The High Court concluded that “there is no apparent error on the part of the learned first appellate Court” and that the remand for a fresh trial was justified.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to restore the suit and proceed as per the Appellate Court’s instructions.
