Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mustaf s/o Goususab Halagali @ Holageri, was the defendant in O.S.No.142/2014 filed by the respondent, Gangadhar s/o Channamallappa Jadagoudar, before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot. The trial court decreed the suit on 27.04.2017. The respondent appealed to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I, Bagalkot, in R.A.No.76/2020. The First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 11.11.2024, reversed the trial court's decree and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellant then filed this Miscellaneous Second Appeal under Section 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the remand order. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The core legal issue was whether the First Appellate Court had jurisdiction to reverse the trial court's decree and remand the suit without framing a substantial question of law, as required under Section 43 Rule 1(u) CPC. The appellant argued that the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the suit without satisfying the conditions under Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A, or 25 CPC. The respondent supported the remand order. The High Court analyzed the provisions and found that the First Appellate Court did not frame any substantial question of law, nor did it record that the trial court's judgment was defective or that additional evidence was required. The court held that the First Appellate Court acted beyond its jurisdiction and that the remand was illegal. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment, and remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing it to frame substantial questions of law and decide the appeal on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Remand - Jurisdiction of First Appellate Court - Section 43 Rule 1(u) CPC - The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decree and remanded the suit for fresh consideration without framing a substantial question of law. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 43 Rule 1(u) CPC, which requires the appeal to be heard only on a substantial question of law. The remand was set aside and the appeal was remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (Paras 1-6)
B) Civil Procedure - Remand - Conditions for Remand - Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A, 25 CPC - The First Appellate Court remanded the suit without recording satisfaction that the trial court's judgment was defective or that additional evidence was required. The High Court held that remand under Order 41 Rule 23 or 23-A CPC is permissible only when the trial court's decree is reversed on a ground that warrants retrial, and under Rule 25 only when additional evidence is necessary. None of these conditions were satisfied. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by reversing the trial court's decree and remanding the matter for fresh consideration without framing a substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.76/2020, and remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The First Appellate Court was directed to frame substantial questions of law and decide the appeal on merits.
Law Points
- Section 43 Rule 1(u) CPC
- Order 41 Rule 23 CPC
- Order 41 Rule 23-A CPC
- Order 41 Rule 25 CPC
- substantial question of law
- remand without jurisdiction
- trial court decree reversed without framing substantial question of law
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (06) 46
Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 100012 of 2025 (RO)
Sri Shriharsh A. Neelopant (for appellant), Sri Prakash Hosamani (for respondent)
Mustaf s/o Goususab Halagali @ Holageri
Gangadhar s/o Channamallappa Jadagoudar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil miscellaneous second appeal against remand order passed by First Appellate Court in a rent control suit.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (defendant) sought to set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree dated 11.11.2024 in R.A.No.76/2020, which reversed the trial court's decree and remanded the suit for fresh consideration.
Filing Reason
The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decree and remanded the suit without framing a substantial question of law, exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 43 Rule 1(u) CPC.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot) decreed the suit in O.S.No.142/2014 on 27.04.2017. First Appellate Court (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I, Bagalkot) reversed and remanded the matter on 11.11.2024 in R.A.No.76/2020.
Issues
Whether the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 43 Rule 1(u) CPC by reversing the trial court's decree and remanding the suit without framing a substantial question of law.
Whether the conditions for remand under Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A, or 25 CPC were satisfied.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the First Appellate Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by remanding the suit without framing a substantial question of law as required under Section 43 Rule 1(u) CPC.
Respondent supported the remand order, but the court found no merit in the submission.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 43 Rule 1(u) CPC, a first appellate court hearing a miscellaneous second appeal must frame a substantial question of law and decide the appeal only on that question. The court cannot reverse the trial court's decree and remand the suit without framing such a question, nor can it remand unless conditions under Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A, or 25 CPC are satisfied. The First Appellate Court's remand order was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is filed by the defendant calling in question the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2024, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I, Bagalkot (First Appellate Court), in R.A.No.76/2020, thereby, the order dated 27.04.2017, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot (trial Court), in O.S.No.142/2014, is reversed and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration.
The First Appellate Court has not framed any substantial question of law as required under Section 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanding the matter back to the trial Court.
Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Procedural History
The respondent filed O.S.No.142/2014 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, which was decreed on 27.04.2017. The respondent appealed to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I, Bagalkot, in R.A.No.76/2020, which reversed the trial court's decree and remanded the suit on 11.11.2024. The appellant then filed this Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 100012 of 2025 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was allowed on 17.06.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 43 Rule 1(u), Order 41 Rule 23, Order 41 Rule 23-A, Order 41 Rule 25
