Madhya Pradesh High Court
Summan Singh vs Sumantra Bai on 21 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 21st OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 1057 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
SUMMAN SINGH S/O MULLU SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, CASTE -LODHI, R/O MADHI
TEH. LAKHANADON DISTT. SONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SUNIL PANDEY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SUMANTRA BAI W/O DULICHAND LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O VILL. MADHI TEH.
LAKHANDON DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. LAXMI BAI D/O DULICHAND LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, R / O VILL. MADHI TEH.
LAKHANDON DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. KAPSI BAI WD/O SHYAM SINGH LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILL. MADHI TEH.
LAKHANDON DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. RAMKALI BAI WD/O BEERAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, R / O VILL. MADHI TEH.
LAKHANDON DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. BIHI BAI W/O BHUWAN SINGH LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, R / O VILL. MADHI TEH.
LAKHANDON DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. KALA BAI W/O LAL SINGH LODHI, AGED ABOUT
Signature Not Verified
SAN
56 YEARS, R/O VILL. MADHI TEH. LAKHANDON
DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.09.21 19:41:52 IST
7. SHANTA BAI, W/O CHAND RAM LODHI, AGED
2
ABOUT 54 YEARS, R / O VILL. MADHI TEH.
LAKHANDON DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. STATE OF M.P. THRO. COLLECTOR SEONI
COLLECTORATE OFFICE, SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5-A. BHUVAN SINGH LODHI S/O DAULAT SINGH
LODHI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILL. LADH, POST JHIRI,
P.S.CHHAPARA, TH. LAKHNADON, DISTT.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5-B. KUMMA S/O BHUVAN SINGH LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VILL. LADH, POST JHIRI,
P.S.CHHAPARA, TH. LAKHNADON, DISTT.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5-C. SUMMAN S/O BHUVAN SINGH LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILL. LADH, POST JHIRI,
P.S.CHHAPARA, TH. LAKHNADON, DISTT.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5-D. SHANKAR S/O BHUVAN SINGH LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILL. LADH, POST JHIRI,
P.S.CHHAPARA, TH. LAKHNADON, DISTT.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5-E. NANHU S/O BHUVAN SINGH LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O VILL. LADH, POST JHIRI,
P.S.CHHAPARA, TH. LAKHNADON, DISTT.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5-F. CHOTE S/O BHUVAN SINGH LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILL. LADH, POST JHIRI,
P.S.CHHAPARA, TH. LAKHNADON, DISTT.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5-G. GOURA BAI D/O BHUVAN SINGH LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VILL. LADH, POST JHIRI,
P.S.CHHAPARA, TH. LAKHNADON, DISTT.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5-H. CHANDA BAI D/O BHUVAN SINGH LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILL. LADH, POST JHIRI,
P.S.CHHAPARA, TH. LAKHNADON, DISTT.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.09.21 19:41:52 IST .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE )
3
This appeal coming on for hearing on this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the plaintiff/appellant being
aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 22/12/2010 passed by learned
Additional District Judge to the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge (Fast
Track Court), Lakhnadaun, Distt. Seoni in Civil Appeal No.5-A/2009 whereby
learned lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree dated
12/11/2007 passed in Civil Suit No.55-A/2007 and remanded the matter without
framing any issue.
This practice of wholesale remand has been condemned by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Vipin Kumar and others Vs. Sarojani, 2013 (1)
MPLJ 480.
Coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of Suresh
Chandra and others Vs. Giriraj Singh and others (M.A. No.2576/2021)
decided on 4th April, 2022, in para-16 has held as under :
"16. The lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court and has remanded the matter
back to it for impleadment of new defendants and affording them
opportunity of hearing and deciding the matter afresh in accordance
with law. From the impugned order it cannot be gathered as to under
what provision the remand has been made by the lower appellate
Court. Remand could have been made by it under the provisions of
Order 41 Rule 23 to Rule 29 of the CPC. Rule 23 would not be
Signature Not Verified
SAN
applicable as the trial Court had not disposed off the suit on a
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.09.21 19:41:52 IST
preliminary issue. Rule 23-A would also not be applicable as the
lower appellate Court has not gone into the merits of the case and
has not reversed the decree upon which a retrial has been deemed
necessary. Only application for impleadment of parties has been
allowed and matter has been remanded back. Thus, the remand as
directed by the lower appellant Court is not in conformity with the
provisions of Order 41 of the CPC. A remand can be made by the
appellate Court only under the circumstances and eventualities as
contemplated under Rule 23 to Rule 29 of Order 41 of the CPC and
not beyond it. The impugned order does not fall under any of the
aforesaid provisions."
As no issue has been framed and such kind of wholesale remand without
application of mind, cannot be given an approval, order of remand is quashed.
Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on its own merits after
affording opportunity of hearing to rival parties.
In above terms, this miscellaneous appeal is disposed of.
Let record of the Courts below be sent back immediately.
Later on, Shri A.L. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents, appears
and prays for marking his presence.
His presence is, accordingly, marked.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.09.21 19:41:52 IST
