Shri Thirman Keot vs Sri Dharma Koch and Others

B.L. Hansaria, J.—Speedy justice is not only a cutch-word but it has to be the desideration of all the courts. It is known that remand of matter cause delay, and indeed has been one of the cause of prolongation of litigation No doubt, Order 41, Rule 25 CPC has conferred the power of remand, but resort to the same w�uld be illegal, and really unwarranted, if in appeal ca be disposed of under Order 41, Rule 24.

In the present proceeding, we are concerned with a suit filed in 1972. It was for declaration or title and for confirmation of possession. The Plaintiff-Petitioner claimed that he had purchased the suit land from Defendant No. 10 and had obtained possession, and was continuing to possess the same since purchase. Defendant No. 1, on the other hand, claimed possession in him and so also the title. It, however, so happened that no Issue relating to possession was specifically framed. However, the parties led their evidence on this aspect of the case as well and the learned trial Court did apply its mind on the question of possession under issue No. 5 which read: "To what relief, if any, Is the Plaintiff entitled to". On answering other issues in favour of the Plaintiff, the suit was decreed. On an appeal being preferred, the learned Court has remanded the matter after framing issue relating to possession. The Plaintiff has felt aggrieved at this order of remand and has approached this Court in revision.

It is submitted by Shri Barua that the order of remand is illegal, and really without jurisdiction. It is first urged that though no issue was framed on possession, parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case, and led all the evidence not only in support of the contentions but in refutation of those of the others. In such situation, a remit is not called for. In this connection, reference has been made to Nedunuri Kameswaramma Vs. Sampati Subba Rao, Reliance is also placed on Lalit Mohan v. Mohan Nath AIR 1974 Gau 68 wherein it was observed that when there is sufficient evidence to enable the Appellant Court to pronounce judgment, it is its duty to do so under Order 41, Rule 24; and in such a case it cannot pass on to make a remand. Similar views have been expressed in Kalka Prasad Ram Charan Vs. Harish Chandra, and H.V. Dattathri v. Vaman Rao AIR 1975 Karn 116. It may be stated that Rule 24 permits even resettlement of issues.

As to the existence of materials on record to decide the question of possession, Shri Barua has referred to the averments made in paragraph 5 of this petition which have not been contro- verted wherein it has been stated that the Petitioner had led evidence regarding possession over the suit land and opposite party No. 1 has also tried to prove his possession through his witnesses. This being the position, the order of remand cannot be regarded as one which has been passed in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the learned Assistant District Judge. The same is, therefore, set aside and the learned appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal pending before him on the materials already or record. This being an old case receive priority and would be disposed of on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records by the learned Court below.

In the result, the petition is allowed as aforesaid.