The Supreme Court has reiterated that an appellate court should not routinely remand a case to the trial court merely because a particular issue was not separately framed, where the pleadings, evidence and issues already on record enable the appellate court to decide the dispute itself.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the case where a Karta, out of a legal necessity to repay the loan taken for the daughter's marriage, had sold out the Hindu Undivided Family property to the buyer/Appellant. Based on the pleadings and issues arising thereof, the sale deed was upheld by the trial court.

In a First Appeal filed before the Dharwad Circuit Bench of the Karnataka High Court by the plaintiffs-co-sharers, a remand order was passed remanding the case back to the trial court for failing to frame a specific issue of whether the sale deed was sham and that an issue concerning limitation had also not been specifically framed.

Against the High Court's decision of remand, the buyer approached the Supreme Court arguing that even if at all the High Court felt that the trial court had not framed sufficient issues relating to limitation or the sale deed being sham, being a First Appellate Court, it could have addressed those issues, without remanding the matter to the trial court for its consideration.

Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the judgment authored by Justice Bhatti observed that the High Court had unnecessarily remanded the case to the trial court when it could have considered those issues itself, given the fact that the issues arose from that set of facts, pleadings and issues which were already on record before the High Court. [See Ashwini Kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 161]

“When the material was available before the High Court, it should have itself decided the appeal one way or the other. It could have considered the various aspects of the case mentioned in the order of the trial court and considered whether the order of the trial court ought to be confirmed or reversed or modified. It could have easily considered the documents and affidavits and decided about the prima facie case on the material available.”, the Court observed in Ashwini Kumar K. Patel (supra).

Reference was made to the case of P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. v. Pratap Steels Ltd (2002) 2 SCC 686, where the Court observed:

“It is true that a specific issue was not framed by the trial court…The High Court was to examine whether such finding of the trial court was sustainable or not — in law and on facts. Even otherwise the question could have been gone into by the High Court and a finding could have been recorded on the available material inasmuch as the High Court being the court of first appeal, all the questions of fact and law arising in the case were open before it for consideration and decision.”

Applying the law to the facts of the present case, the Court observed:

“In our view, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course, and the Judgment of remand reflects the Appellate Court's incorrect exercise of its discretion. In the case at hand, the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence in accordance with the burden and onus of proof fastened on them. At this stage, directions are given to reframe issues, adduce further evidence, and afford the parties a further opportunity to lead evidence. There were no circumstances preventing the first appellate court from deciding the points in issue. Consequently, remanding the case to the Trial Court is completely contrary to the legal principles laid down by this Court in the decisions mentioned above…”

The appeal was allowed, and the remand order was set aside, restoring the first appeal to the High Court's file.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Section 107, Order XLI Rule 23, Order XLI Rule 24 & Order XLI Rule 27 — Scope and exercise of power of remand by the First Appellate Court — Remand is not a matter of routine course - An order of remand should not be adopted as a matter of ordinary course - The First Appellate Court is required not only to determine the legality and tenability of the Trial Court's judgment, but it also exercises all the jurisdiction that the Trial Court had to decide the issues - When the necessary pleadings and evidence (both oral and documentary) are already available on record, the First Appellate Court ought to decide the appeal itself on merits rather than remitting the matter to the Trial Court to re-frame issues and record further evidence, which only serves to cause unnecessary delay, uncertainty, and avoidable prolonged litigation - The discretion to remand is to be exercised only when imminently warranted by the specific circumstances of a given case (such as where a suit was disposed of strictly on a preliminary issue without evidence on other issues). [Paras 14 - 16]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Framing of Issues & Appellate Power — Adequacy of Existing Issues - Where existing issues framed by the Trial Court are sufficiently broad and comprehensive to cover the core disputes between the parties (e.g., validity/binding nature of a registered sale deed and legal necessity), and the parties went to trial knowing the controversy and leading evidence accordingly, an appellate court cannot routinely remand the matter merely on the premise that specific distinct issues (such as limitation, possession, or whether the deed is sham/nominal) were not explicitly framed - The First Appellate Court possesses full jurisdiction to evaluate the available evidence and return findings on questions of fact and law. [Relied on Ashwini Kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 161; P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. v. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 686; Zarif Ahmad (Dead) Through LRs. & Anr. v. Mohd. Farooq, (2015) 13 SCC 673; Paras 14-17]

Cause Title: SHIVAPPA VERSUS SHANTAVVA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 812

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mr. Anand Kolli, Adv. Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR Mr. Kotresh A M, Adv. Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vijay Bandi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanket Shankrappa Ambali, Adv. Ms. G. Anusha, Adv. Mr. Basheerahmed, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Garg, AOR Mr. Rahul Singh Latwal, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Singh, Adv. Ms. Pulkit, Adv.