Jharkhand High Court
Manmohan Singh vs Bimla Sardar Munda on 4 September, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:26915
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No.231 of 2022
Manmohan Singh, S/o Late Sardar Gyan Singh, R/o Pee- Pee
Compound, Hindpiri, PO and PS- Hindpiri, District- Ranchi at present
resident of Torpa Road, Khunti, PO and PS and District-Khunti.
.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Bimla Sardar Munda, W/o Baijnath Munda, R/o Village- Kamanta,
Martin Bangla, PO and PS and District-Khunti.
2. Kriti Devi, W/o Late Parash Sahu, Resident of Torpa Road, Khunti,
PO and PS and District-Khunti. .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant (s) : M/s Rohitashya Roy, Advocate
Oishi Das & Amartya Choubey, Advs.
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Vivek Kr. Rai, Advocate
......
10/ 04.09.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The defendant/ appellant is before this Court in appeal under Order
XLIII Rule 1(u) CPC against the impugned judgment passed by
learned Principal District Judge, Khunti, in Civil Appeal No.12 of
2017 by which the judgment and decree of dismissal of Title Suit
No.07 of 2014 has been set aside, and the matter has been
remanded to the learned Trial Court for deciding all the issues
afresh.
2. Plaintiff(s) filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over
the suit property and also in case of dispossession over it, for
recover of the same.
3. The suit property/land, is measuring 9 decimals, out of 72 decimals
appertaining to R.S. Plot Nos.1571 and 1572, Khata No.93, Village
and District- Ranchi now Khunti was sold to the plaintiff(s)/
respondent by registered sale-deed.
4. Plaintiff claims title over the suit land vide Sale Deed No.1211 dated
02.02.1993 from Paraw Munda, Kanju Kachhap and one Jaleshwar
Kachhap after getting due permission under Section 46 of the
C.N.T. Act. After the purchase, the land, in question, was duly
mutated in the name of the appellant and they are paying rent to the
State.
2025:JHHC:26915
5. Further, Paraw Munda had leased the suit land for a period ten
years from 01.01.1982 to 31.12.1991 by registered deed of lease
dated 27.12.1980 in contravention of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act.
6. Defendant/ appellant claims to be in possession over the property
on the basis of registered deed of lease dated 16.11.1976 for five
years and thereafter it was extended to 31.12.1991 by virtue of deed
of lease dated 23.12.1980 on which he is presently running a
factory. It is also averred that vide Agreement to Sale dated
18.06.1992, he had paid a consideration amount of Rs.3 Lakhs. The
deed of sale was not executed as the requisite permission under
Section 49 of the C. N. T. Act was not obtained by the proposed
vendor.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned
Trial Court could not have proceeded with the suit and it should
have dismissed it for the reason that since the plaintiff was a
member of Schedule Tribe, therefore, the mandate of law under
Order 1 Rule 3 CPC to implead the Deputy Commissioner was not
followed.
8. The said provision is mandatory in nature as held by the Patna High
Court (Ranchi Bench) in the case reported in 1992 SCC OnLine
Patna 75, therefore, on this score itself, the suit should have been
dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court entered into the merit
and dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court also did not
consider this aspect of the matter and remanded the matter to the
learned Trial Court for adjudication afresh.
9. The order of remand has been assailed on the ground that the
learned First Appellate Court without applying the mind has
remanded the matter for de novo trial. If the evidence is sufficient
on record, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that in such cases
the First Appellate Court being the Court of fact should decide the
matter instead of prolonging it by remanding to the Trial Court.
Reliance is placed on Arvind Kumar Jaiswal (D) Thr. Lr. Vs.
Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 146 and
Aysha & Ors. Vs. A. M. Hussainar, passed in Civil Appeal No.2647
/2024 [@ SLP (C) No.18912/2019].
2025:JHHC:26915
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ Respondent No.1 also agrees
to the extent that the materials were on record and the First
Appellate Court should have decided the issue(s) involved in the
instant case.
11. Before proceeding forward, it shall be desirable to take note of
the law laid down with abundant clarity in Shiv Kumar @ Ors Vs
Sharanbasappa 2020 SCC OnLine SC 385
25.4. A 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 CPC 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. There could, of course, be several
eventualities which may justify an order of remand or where remand would be
rather necessary depending on the facts and the given set of circumstances of a
case.
12. At the outset it may be noted that nonjoinder of necessary party
should be raised in the pleading at the first instance. Here the non-
joinder of Deputy Commissioner cannot be said to have prejudiced
the appellant/defendant. Be that as it may, learned 1st appellate
court could have decided this issue along with other issues on the
basis of evidence of record. There was no occasion to remand the
matter to the trial court.
13. Under the circumstance, the impugned order is set aside.
The instant Misc. Appeal stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also
stands disposed of.
14. Learned First Appellate Court is directed to hear and dispose of
the First Appeal within three months from the date of receipt/
production of a copy of this order.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/-
