Section 105 CPC means that normally no separate appeal lies from every order, but if a final decree is appealed, then any error, defect, or irregularity in an order which affected the decision of the case can be challenged in that appeal.
In simple words, Section 105 prevents parties from filing appeals against every intermediate order and delaying the suit, yet it still allows them to attack such erroneous orders later when they appeal against the decree.
In the courtroom, few
questions trouble judges more than this: When a superior court remands a case
with specific direction—say, “decide in light of judgment X”—and newer, binding
law emerges that contradicts judgment X, what must the subordinate court do?
Ignore the evolved jurisprudence for fidelity to the remand order? Or embrace
justice’s developmental arc by applying the latest pronouncements of the apex
court?
The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Hardit Singh Chadha v. Jagtar Singh Grover (1993) answers with eloquence, intellectual courage, and a philosophy that elevates judicial reasoning above mechanical obedience. This landmark decision dissects the jurisprudential relationship between remand orders and the dynamic evolution of law—a question of profound procedural and substantive importance for judges navigating the intersection of appellate direction and legal change.
Print PageThe revisional authority, having recorded a finding on the
defectiveness of the panchnama, was under a legal duty to test the
merits of the Mamlatdar’s order in the light of the other evidence
on record, and determine whether the decision suffers from
perversity or legal infirmity. Once the panchnama was found to be
of doubtful evidentiary worth, the correct course would have been to proceed with adjudication on available legal grounds, and not to relegate the parties to a fresh round of proceedings without justification. {Para 5}
6. The power of remand, when exercised in absence of
compelling legal necessity, leads to avoidable delay in the
resolution of disputes. Courts and quasi-judicial authorities are
expected to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure effective
adjudication in the interest of justice. Remand should not be
directed where the record is sufficient for final disposal and no
prejudice is caused.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5672 OF 2025
Kapil Satish Phalke & Anr. V/s. The Sub Divisional Officer, Koregaon Sub Division, Koregaon, District Satara & Ors.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MAY 5, 2025.
Print PageIn the instant case the revisional court had assumed the jurisdiction of executing court and dismissed the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97, though observing that the issue of res judicata should have been decided first. The revisional court at the most could have remanded the matter with certain directions, it cannot assume the role of a executing court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, as the order dated 16.05.2024 does not fall in the category of case decided. {Para 33}
34. After giving thoughtful consideration, I find that the revisional court had exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 by the petitioner before the executing court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. However, the executing court has also failed in its endeavour to decide the execution case pending before it since the year 2014, and after framing the issue of res judicata had postponed the matter to be decided at the final stage.
35. In such a case where it is an admitted fact that the property was transferred during pendency of the suit and petitioner is a transferee pendente lite and hit by provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the executing court should have, at the very outset, proceeded to pass the order in pursuance of Rule 102 CPC.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Matters Under Article 227 No. 11807 of 2024
Decided On: 11.03.2025
Santosh Awasthi Vs. Urmila Jain
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
Citation: MANU/UP/0397/2025,- 2025:AHC:35146.
Print PageSection 15 in Maharashtra Court-fees Act.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Appeal (crl.) 808 of 2002
Decided On: 13.08.2002
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.B. Shah and B.P. Singh, JJ.
Author: B.P. Singh, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0670/2002,AIR 2002 SC 2907,2002 INSC 332.
https://www.lawweb.in/2024/08/supreme-court-all-grounds-that-may-be.html
4.1. Now the findings and the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court refusing to pass a decree for specific performance is concerned it appears that though there was no specific issue framed by the learned Trial Court on readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff, the Trial Court has given the findings on the same and has non-suited the Plaintiff by observing that the Plaintiff was not having sufficient funds to make the full balance consideration on or before 12.01.2006. Such a finding could not have been given by the learned Trial Court without putting the Plaintiff to notice and without framing a specific issue on the readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff. There must be a specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and before giving any specific finding, the parties must be put to notice. The object and purpose of framing the issue is so that the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same. On the aforesaid ground the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and refusing to pass the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell confirmed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned Trial Court to frame the specific issue with respect to the readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff. On remand the parties be permitted to lead the evidence on the readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, more particularly, whether the Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the full consideration and whether the Plaintiff was having sufficient funds and/or could have managed the balance sale consideration.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 8050-8051 of 2022
Decided On: 09.11.2022
V.S. Ramakrishnan Vs. P.M. Muhammed Ali
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Author: M.R. Shah, J.
Citation: 2022 INSC 1189, MANU/SC/1465/2022.
Print Page
It is not understood as to how the Sessions Judge could apply this provision to hold that the revision before the Sessions Judge was barred Under Section 397(3). Cr. P.C. The earlier Criminal Revision which had been filed before the Higli Court had been disposed of directing the trial Court to re-consider the matter and thereafter the trial Court after reconsideration passed a fresh order rejecting the application for recalling the witness. Against the said order, revision was filed before the Sessions Judge. The question as to whether such a revision before the Sessions Judge was maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 397(2), Cr. P.C. is another matter which need not detain us. The fact remains that the Sessions Judge has not considered the question of maintainability of the revision on the ground of bar Under Section 397(2), but Under Section 397(3), Cr. P.C. Law is well settled that Section 397(3), Cr. P.C. bars a second revision at the instance of the same petitioner. In other words, if an order of the trial Court is challenged before the Sessions Judge or the High Court in revision and such revision is dismissed on merit, a further revision cannot be filed before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, as the case may be, by the party who had unsuccessfully filed the first revision. This does not mean that where a revision has been disposed of with a direction for reconsideration and fresh order is passed by the trial Court on reconsideration, the same cannot be subject to another revision.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 9288 of 1999
Decided On: 06.08.1999
Indrajeet Roy Vs. Republic of India
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.K. Misra and R.K. Patra, JJ.
Authored By : P.K. Misra, R.K. Patra
Citation: 1999 CRLJ 4727 (Orissa),MANU/OR/0173/1999.
Print PageIn our view, there was neither any need and nor any occasion to remand the case to the Magistrate. In other words, we are of the view that there was enough material before the Appellate Court on the basis of which the appeal on merits could have been decided one way or the other instead of remanding the case to the Magistrate for deciding it afresh. {Para 17}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 2103 of 2008
Decided On: 28.03.2019
Susanta Dey Vs. Babli Majumdar and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Author: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Citation: AIR 2019 SC 1661,MANU/SC/0428/2019.
Print PageIn this suit though specific averment is made in plaint about title and the same has been refuted by defendant, no specific issue in that regard is framed by Trial Court. Similarly, as the question of fact and law relating to title is involved, it was not proper for First Appellate Court to record findings thereon for first time. This would have resulted into loss of the opportunity of first appeal to aggrieved party. {Para 13}.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Appeal From Order Nos. 24, 22 of 2022, Civil Application Nos. 6863 and 12966 of 2022
Decided On: 10.04.2023
Laxmibai Vs. Sandeep
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.M. Joshi, J.
Citation: MANU/MH/1396/2023.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
Print PageConsidering nature of dispute between adjoining owners of agricultural lands, the real dispute between the parties is required to be decided finally. Pertinently the suit of Sandeep was dismissed on the ground that he did not cause measurement of the land prior to filing of the suit. Similarly, in case of Laxmibai, she also did not lead evidence to substantiate the western side boundary of her land bearing gut bearing 383. It is settled law that the dispute between the parties in respect of encroachment, shall not be decided on oral evidence but by measurements of disputed lands. Though present case is not for a removal of encroachment but there is dispute as to who is having title and possession over the disputed 74 R land, in such case also to bring finality of dispute it is just and necessary to measure the lands of rival parties. The order of remand cannot be considered as shortcut for disposal of appeals, but in facts and circumstances of the case it had no other option but to relegate the suits back of the Trial Court. {Para 16}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Appeal From Order Nos. 24, 22 of 2022, Civil Application Nos. 6863 and 12966 of 2022
Decided On: 10.04.2023
Laxmibai Vs. Sandeep
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.M. Joshi, J.
Citation: MANU/MH/1396/2023
Print Page
On the facts of the present case and the nature of order passed by the High Court, the enunciations and observations in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra) are of no application whatsoever as none of the parties have sought any permission to adduce evidence nor the High Court has specified as to what specific evidence was considered necessary to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any substantial cause. Moreover, it does not appear from the judgment of the High Court if the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 (Appellant before the High Court), ever projected that the Trial Court did not allow her to produce any evidence that was sought to be produced. It is also not borne out if any of the parties at all made out any case for production of additional documents or oral evidence with reference to the applicable principles. Hence, the general observations of the High Court cannot be correlated with Rule 27(1) either. With respect, we are constrained to apply the observations of this Court in Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (supra) to say that the present order of remand has been passed only on ipse dixit of High Court sans any reason or justification. {Para 12}
13. It gets perforce reiterated that in the suit filed by Respondent No. 1, the Trial Court had indeed returned its findings on the basis of evidence on record. Whether those findings are sustainable or not is a matter entirely different and the High Court may examine the same but merely because the High Court could not reach to a conclusion on preponderance of probabilities, the evidence on record could not have been treated as insufficient so as to not pronounce the judgment in terms of Rule 24 of Order XLI Code of Civil Procedure.
14. In regard to the want of any particular evidence, we may observe in the passing that if the Court finds any particular evidence directly within the control and possession of a party having not been produced, the necessary consequences like those specified in illustration (g) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act3 may follow but, merely because a particular evidence which ought to have been adduced but had not been adduced, the Appellate Court cannot adopt the soft course of remanding the matter. We would hasten to observe that we are not commenting on the merits of the case either way. The observations herein are only to indicate that the remand of the suit for trial de novo cannot be considered justified in the present case from any standpoint.
15. For what has been discussed hereinabove, suffice it would be to sum up that for a few tentative observations about certain circumstances existing in favour of the Plaintiff and certain other circumstances existing in favour of the Defendants and then, with another observation that Plaintiff was a vital witness, the High Court was not justified in remanding the matter for trial de novo without recording any finding if the Plaintiff was prevented from examining herself or from adducing any other evidence as also without explaining as to on what ground the decree was being reversed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 1491 of 2023
Decided On: 27.02.2023
Sirajudheen Vs. Zeenath and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0177/2023,2023 SCCONLINE SC 196.
Print PageSuch cases where retrial is considered necessary because of any particular reason and more particularly for the reason that adequate opportunity of leading sufficient evidence to a party is requisite, stand at entirely different footings than the cases where evidence has already been adduced and decision is to be rendered on appreciation of evidence. It also remains trite that an order of remand is not to be passed merely for the purpose of allowing a party to fill-up the lacuna in its case.
25.5. It gets perforce reiterated that the occasion for remand would arise only when the factual findings of Trial Court are reversed and a re-trial is considered necessary by the Appellate Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 6076 of 2009
Decided On: 24.04.2020
Shivakumar and Ors. Vs. Sharanabasappa and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0395/2020,(2021) 11 SCC 277,2020 SCCONLINE SC 385.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
Print PageA conjoint reading of Rules 23, 23A and 24 of Order XLI brings forth the scope as also contours of the powers of remand that when the available evidence is sufficient to dispose of the matter, the proper course for an Appellate Court is to follow the mandate of Rule 24 of Order XLI Code of Civil Procedure and to determine the suit finally. It is only in such cases where the decree in challenge is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary that the Appellate Court shall adopt the course of remanding the case. It remains trite that order of remand is not to be passed in a routine manner because an unwarranted order of remand merely elongates the life of the litigation without serving the cause of justice. An order of remand only on the ground that the points touching the appreciation of evidence were not dealt with by the Trial Court may not be considered proper in a given case because the First Appellate Court itself is possessed of jurisdiction to enter into facts and appreciate the evidence. {Para 25.4.}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 6076 of 2009
Decided On: 24.04.2020
Shivakumar and Ors. Vs. Sharanabasappa and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0395/2020,(2021) 11 SCC 277,2020 SCCONLINE SC 385.
Print PageIn the present case at hand, the Appellants herein, in the court of first appeal filed a cross objection. It is the claim of the Appellants herein that his cross objection was not considered by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment. At this stage, it must be noted that while cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same.{Para 17}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 4172 of 2023
Decided On: 04.07.2023
Dheeraj Singh Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Krishna Murari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Author: Krishna Murari, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0727/2023.
Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print PageIn the present case at hand, the Appellants herein, in the court of first appeal filed a cross objection. It is the claim of the Appellants herein that his cross objection was not considered by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment. At this stage, it must be noted that while cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same. {Para 17}
18. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the issues raised by the Appellants in their cross objections have not been considered by the High Court. No mention of the cross objections filed by the Appellants herein have been found in the said judgment. While the High Court has given a detailed analysis of all other issues raised in the appeal and the both the lower court orders, however, the cross objections in specific, finds no discussion, much less even a mention.
19. In the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by LRs. MANU/SC/0091/2001 : (2001) 2 SC 407, this Court held that the court of appeal has a duty to apply its mind to all issues raised before it, and to discharge such duty, it must also record its findings against all such issues raised.
21. Further, in the case of Jitendra Prasad Nayak v. Anant kumar Sah and Anr. MANU/SC/1506/1998 : (1998) 9 SCC 383, this Court, in an identical circumstance wherein the cross objections filed by the Appellant therein was not considered by the court of first appeal, held that remanded the case back to the High Court and observed as under:
....Admittedly, a cross-objection was filed by the Appellant-landlord against the rejection by the first appellate court of the existence of one of the two grounds of eviction. However, while deciding the appeal of the Respondent-tenant in his favour against the decision of the first appellate court on the other ground, the existence of the cross objection appears to have been missed by the High Court with the result that there is no decision given on the cross objection. The impugned judgment cannot, therefore, be sustained inter alia for this reason. We are also of the opinion that the question relating to existence of the ground of bona fide need which has been decided in favour of the tenant requires a fresh determination by the High Court along with the other point relating to default in payment of rent which was the subject matter of cross-objection
22. The abovementioned discussions and judgments, when contextualized to the present case, would show that the High Court was under an obligation to consider the cross objections filed by the Appellants herein. Since such an obligation was not discharged while passing the judgment in appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is fit for remand to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised in the cross objections during appeal by the Appellants herein. Accordingly, the present appeals are therefore allowed to such an extent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 4172 of 2023
Decided On: 04.07.2023
Dheeraj Singh Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Krishna Murari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Author: Krishna Murari, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0727/2023.
Print Page(2) Where an offence has been compounded, the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of the offence compounded.” {Para 24}
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6183 of 2016
Unfortunately NCLAT completely overlooked the pleadings revolving around the letter dated 28.09.2015 and the six cheques. The failure of the NCLAT as the first appellate authority to look into a very vital aspect such as this, vitiates its order, especially when NCLT has recorded a specific finding of fact on this.
{Para 8}
9. It is needless to point out that the law relating to the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is fairly well settled. In Jignesh Shah and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. MANU/SC/1319/2019 : (2019) 10 SCC 750, this Court pointed out that when time begins to run, it can only be extended in the manner provided in the Limitation Act. For holding so this Court made a reference to Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Though in Babu Lal Vardharji Gurjar v. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited and Anr. MANU/SC/0589/2020 : (2020) 15 SCC 1, a two member Bench of this Court held that the reference in Jignesh Shah (supra) to Section 18 of the Limitation Act was only illustrative and that the ratio in B.K. Educational Services Private Limited v. Parag Gupta and Associates MANU/SC/1160/2018 : (2019) 11 SCC 633 did not stand altered by Jignesh Shah, no discordant note was struck. But the cloud of doubt created by Babu Lal (supra) was cleared subsequently in Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India and Anr. MANU/SC/0221/2021 : (2021) 8 SCC 481. In Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal and Anr. MANU/SC/0279/2021 : (2021) 6 SCC 366, this Court, while applying Section 18 of the Limitation Act, even went to the extent of holding that an entry in the balance sheet of the company could also be treated as an acknowledgment in writing, subject however to any caveat found in the accompanying reports.
10. The law as it has developed on the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the circumstances in which it would apply, have also not been examined by NCLAT. Therefore, the order of NCLAT is liable to be set aside and the matter liable to be remanded back for a fresh consideration.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2020
Decided On: 29.03.2022
SVG Fashions Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known as SVG Fashions Ltd.)
Vs. Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Author: V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0370/2022
Print PageAn order of remand prolongs and delays the litigation and
hence, should not be passed unless the appellate court finds that a re-trial is required, or the evidence on record is not sufficient
to dispose of the matter for reasons like lack of adequate
opportunity of leading evidence to a party, where there had been no real trial of the dispute or there is no complete or effectual
adjudication of the proceedings, and the party complaining has
suffered material prejudice on that account.1 Where evidence has already been adduced and a decision can be rendered on appreciation of such evidence, an order of remand should not be passed remitting the matter to the lower court, even if the lower court has omitted to frame issue(s) and/or has failed to determine any question of fact, which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is essential. The first appellate court, if required, can also direct the trial court to record evidence and finding on a particular aspect/issue in terms of Rule 25 to Order XLI, which then can be taken on record for deciding the case by the appellate court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
ARVIND KUMAR JAISWAL (D) THR. LR. Vs DEVENDRA PRASAD JAISWAL VARUN
FEBRUARY 13, 2023.
Print PageIf such a remand is directed by the second Appellate Court or by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on remand of such matter before the lower Appellate Court, the lower Appellate Court has all the options open including, in turn, remanding the matter to the trial Court if it thinks that such a course is necessary in the ends of justice. Therefore, a Division Bench of Travancore-Cochin High Court in Sivanancha Perumal Piltai Thampuranthozha Pillai appellant v. Thirunamakarasu Pandaram and others respondents, A.I.R. (39)1951 Travancore Cochin 26 has held that when a decree is set aside and the case remanded to the lower Court all the contentions between the parties are before the Court and it is open for the trial Court to go into all the issues arising on such contentions. Only limitation after the remand is as may be contained in the order of remand. If the order of remand restricts the jurisdiction, the Court cannot override those limitations. But if the order of remand is in fact a direction of re-hearing on merits on all issues and all contentions raised by the parties, the jurisdiction is not at all restricted. When the matter is remanded to the lower Appellate Court, the lower Appellate Court has jurisdiction to remand the matter to the trial Court exercising its powers under Order XLI, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code. However, the power of the remand will have to be exercised sparingly since it will have to be born in mind always that it may prolong the duration of a litigation and the party who is entitled for the fruits of the decree is kept away from it by such prolongation.
