High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal Against Remand Order in Injunction Suit — Remand Without Deciding Merits Held Improper. The Court set aside the remand order and directed the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits under Order 41 Rule 23A CPC, as the trial court had not decided the suit on a preliminary point.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present Miscellaneous Second Appeal was filed by the defendants (appellants) challenging the order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari in R.A. No.21/2019, whereby the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 passed by the trial court in O.S. No.780/2015 and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. The plaintiff had originally filed a suit for permanent injunction based on possession. The trial court, after full trial, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, without deciding the appeal on merits, set aside the trial court's decree and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The defendants challenged this remand order before the High Court. The High Court examined the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23 and Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It held that remand under Order 41 Rule 23 is permissible only when the suit is disposed of on a preliminary point, and under Rule 23A only when the appellate court reverses the decree on a preliminary point and remands for retrial. In the present case, the trial court had decided the suit on merits after full trial, and therefore, the First Appellate Court was required to decide the appeal on merits. The remand order was held to be improper and without jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the remand order, and directed the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both parties. The High Court also directed the First Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Remand - Order 41 Rule 23 and Rule 23A CPC - Improper Remand - The First Appellate Court set aside the trial court's decree and remanded the matter for fresh consideration without deciding the appeal on merits. The High Court held that remand under Order 41 Rule 23 is permissible only when the suit is disposed of on a preliminary point, and under Rule 23A only when the appellate court reverses the decree on a preliminary point and remands for retrial. Since the trial court had decided the suit on merits after full trial, the appellate court was required to decide the appeal on merits and could not remand the matter. The remand order was set aside. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Permanent Injunction - Suit for Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction based on possession. The trial court dismissed the suit after trial. The First Appellate Court remanded the matter without deciding the appeal on merits. The High Court held that the appellate court must decide the appeal on merits and cannot remand the matter unless conditions under Order 41 Rule 23 or 23A are satisfied. (Paras 3-10)

C) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court's Powers - Remand - Section 43 CPC - The appeal under Section 43 CPC was allowed. The High Court set aside the remand order and directed the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both parties. (Paras 10-11)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial court without deciding the appeal on merits, and whether the remand order was sustainable under Order 41 Rule 23 or Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 17.09.2022 passed in R.A. No.21/2019, and directed the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both parties. The First Appellate Court was directed to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

Law Points

  • Remand order without deciding merits is improper
  • Order 41 Rule 23A CPC
  • Order 41 Rule 23 CPC
  • Section 43 CPC
  • Permanent Injunction
  • Suit for injunction
  • Appellate Court's power to remand
  • Conditions for remand
  • Trial Court's duty to decide on merits
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (06) 45

Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 100006 of 2023

2025-06-17

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Sri. S.G. Kadadakatti (for appellant), Sri. Shrinand A. Pachhapure (for respondent 1)

Smt. Lakshmi W/o Late Venkatesh, Gadepaa @ Gadilingappa, Sudhakar S/o Late Venkatesh, Saraswathi D/o Late Venkatesh (LRs of deceased Venkatesh)

Barikara Eranna, Veeresh S/o Late Sanna Mari Veerappa

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for permanent injunction based on possession.

Remedy Sought

The appellants (defendants) sought to set aside the remand order passed by the First Appellate Court and to direct the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits.

Filing Reason

The First Appellate Court set aside the trial court's decree and remanded the matter for fresh consideration without deciding the appeal on merits, which was challenged as improper.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (IVth Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballari) dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 in O.S. No.780/2015. The First Appellate Court (1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari) set aside the trial court's decree and remanded the matter vide order dated 17.09.2022 in R.A. No.21/2019.

Issues

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial court without deciding the appeal on merits? Whether the remand order was sustainable under Order 41 Rule 23 or Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that the First Appellate Court erred in remanding the matter without deciding the appeal on merits, as the trial court had decided the suit on merits after full trial. The respondents supported the remand order, but the judgment does not detail their specific arguments.

Ratio Decidendi

The First Appellate Court cannot remand a matter under Order 41 Rule 23 or Rule 23A of the CPC unless the suit was disposed of on a preliminary point. When the trial court decides the suit on merits after full trial, the appellate court must decide the appeal on merits and cannot remand the matter for fresh consideration.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is filed by defendants No.1(a to d) challenging the order dated 17.09.2022 passed in RA No.21/2019 by the 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari thereby, judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 passed in OS No.780/2015 by the 4th Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballari, is set-aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. The plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction on the basis of possession. The trial Court after full trial dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court without deciding the appeal on merits set aside the trial Court's decree and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. The remand under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC is permissible only when the suit is disposed of on a preliminary point. Under Order 41 Rule 23A CPC, remand is permissible only when the appellate court reverses the decree on a preliminary point and remands for retrial. In the present case, the trial Court had decided the suit on merits after full trial, therefore, the First Appellate Court was required to decide the appeal on merits. The remand order is held to be improper and without jurisdiction. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed O.S. No.780/2015 for permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit on 11.12.2018. The plaintiff appealed in R.A. No.21/2019. The First Appellate Court set aside the trial court's decree and remanded the matter on 17.09.2022. The defendants filed the present Miscellaneous Second Appeal under Section 43 CPC before the High Court, which was allowed on 17.06.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 43, Order 41 Rule 23, Order 41 Rule 23A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Remands Income Tax Reference to High Court for Improper Conditional Disposal. High Court Erred by Basing Answers on Pending Appeals Instead of Determining Issues of Capital Gains and Dividend on Facts.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows DNA Test to Determine Paternity in Civil Suit for Declaration of Status. Court holds that DNA test is necessary to ascertain truth and does not violate right to privacy when ordered in a civil proceeding for declaration of patern...