Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the remand order dated 13.5.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ahmadpur East.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, on 12.4.1992, filed a suit for declaration challenging therein the alleged mutation of gift by her father in favour of the defendants-respondents. The suit was contested by the defendants-respondents, written statement was filed, issues were framed on 16.5.1993, the parties produced their respective evidence and the learned trial Court through judgment and decree dated 19.12.1995 ,decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. The defendants filed appeal before the learned first appellate Court who vide judgment (remand order) dated 13.5.2004, accepted the appeal and remanded the case. Hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even no one has prayed for remand of the case; that there was absolutely no necessity to remand the case as both the parties were aware about the stance taken by each party; that the issues framed by the learned trial Court were comprehensive; that no one prayed for recasting of issues before the first appellate Court and that the remand order is without jurisdiction.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that there was a will deed in favour of the defendants-respondents and an `Aaq Nama' against the plaintiff-petitioner and that both these documents were not considered by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the learned lower appellate Court rightly framed the issues and remanded the case.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. I am afraid that it is not a valid argument for remand of the case. There are certain limitations under Order 41 Rules 23,24 and 25 of the CPC for remand of any case. It is not denied that in utmost necessity, remand of case is permissible under the law but it is equally important that frequently remanding the cases and that too without any justification is not permissible under the law. In the case in hand, learned appellate Court has not given any valid reason for remand of case.
7. The remand order cannot be used to benefit any of the parties to the litigation. In this case, it seems that the case has been remanded to give opportunity to the defendants-respondents to fill in the lacunas in their evidence produced before the learned trial Court.
8. There is sufficient evidence available on the file to decide the issues framed by the learned trial Court and the learned first appellate Court has unnecessarily cast fresh issues.
9. in the light of what has been discussed above, I accept this civil revision, set aside the remand order dated 13.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmadpur East. Resultantly, the appeal titled "Noor Muhammad & others versus Mst. Rabia Basri" will be deemed to be pending before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Ahmadpur East and he will himself decide the same' on merits on the basis of material/evidence available on the file of the learned trial Court: within a period of four months from 25.10.2011. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmadpur East on 25.10.2011.