The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate order that remanded a property dispute suit to the trial court. The remand was necessitated because the appellate court admitted additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which required proof through evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:9129]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4874/2013
1/3. Birju Kumar (Son),
All R/o Ward No. 10, Meghwal Mohalla, Keshoraipatan, Bundi, Rajasthan.
1/4. Anita Pahadiya W/o Shelendra Pahadiya (Daughter), R/o Shamshan Road, Bhadana Ki Tapariya, Rangpur, Kota, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
4/1. Smt. Ram Murti W/o Shri Ram Kalyan Mehgwal (D/o Shri Kanha), R/o Roteda Road, Meghwalon Ka Mohalla, Kapren, District Bundi.
...Non-Petitioners
6/3. Kanchan Bai D/o Shri Ramdeva W/o Shri
[2025:RJ-JP:9129]
[CW-4874/2013]
(2 of 4)
Ramlal, R/o Sultanpur, District Kota.
6/4. Ratanbai D/o Shri Ramdeva, R/o Keshoraipatan, District Bundi.
6/5. Mahaveer S/o Shri Ramdeva, R/o Keshoraipatan, District Bundi (Since Deceased) Through Legal Representatives -
6/5/1.Syana Bai W/o Mahaveer, R/o Keshoraipatan, District Bundi.
6/5/2. Dinesh Alias Pintu S/o Late Shri Mahaveer, R/o Keshoraipatan, District Bundi.
6/6. Shanti Bai W/o Late Ramdeva, R/o Keshoraipatan, District Bundi (Deleted)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.K. Tamoliya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 03/03/2025
This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs (for short “the plaintiffs”) against the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bundi in Civil Appeal No.68/2011 whereby the said court allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 28 CPC filed by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the same afresh in the light of additional documents taken on record under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
[2025:RJ-JP:9129]
[CW-4874/2013]
(3 of 4)
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and recovery of possession of the disputed land. The said suit was decreed by the trial court vide its order dated 18.11.1998. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the defendants filed an appeal against the said order and also filed the documents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The appellate Court took the documents on record and vide its order dated 21.02.2013 remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the matter afresh in the light of the additional evidence taken on record.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial court had committed an error in remanding the matter. The appellate court had to consider the documents at the appellate stage and decide the appeal on merit instead of remanding the same to the trial court. So, order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the appellate court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter because documents were to be proved by way of the evidence, so, order of the appellate court does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
It is an admitted position that during the pendency of the appeal, appellate court allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the defendants and took the documents on record.
[2025:RJ-JP:9129]
[CW-4874/2013]
(4 of 4)
So, these documents were required to be proved by adducing the evidence. So in my considered opinion, appellate court had not committed any error in remanding the matter to the trial court to decide the same afresh in the light of additional documents taken on record under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. So the present civil writ petition filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Avinash/84
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court was justified in remanding the suit to the trial court to prove additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC instead of deciding the appeal on merits?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan S/o Shri Kanha
Additional District Judge, No.1, Bundi
Smt. Basanti Bai W/o Shri Babulal
Babulal S/o Chhitarlal
Kanha S/o Mangi Lal Meghwal
State of Rajasthan through Collector, Bundi
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
