Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6147 Court No. - 36 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2132 of 2024 Appellant :- Nanhi Devi Respondent :- Rakesh Chandra And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar,Surendra Nath Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Devesh Kumar Verma Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant appeal raises a challenge to an order of remand passed by the first Appellate Court that has set aside the decree drawn in a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defendants in the suit were minors and a guardian ad litem was appointed by the Court. The trial court decreed the suit after full contest and the first Appellate Court has erred in accepting the challenge through the civil appeal, which was filed after a period of 17 years. It has further been urged that there being no infirmity in the decree drawn by the trial court, the matter has been unnecessarily remanded to the trial court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents urged that when the suit was filed and the disputed sale deed was executed, the defendants were admittedly minors and as far as delay in filing the appeal is concerned, the delay was condoned after imposing cost of Rs.5,000/-, against which a Writ Petition No. 14586 of 2010 was filed by the appellant before this Court, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.02.2022 and seeking recall of which order, a recall application was filed, which was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 19.07.2023 and, hence, there was no impediment standing against the Appellate Court to proceed to decide the appeal on merits. Even otherwise, the order impugned has been supported by contending that there being no service of notice upon the defendants and even the procedure for appointment of guardian ad litem having not been followed by the first Appellate Court in terms of Order XXXII of Code of Civil Procedure, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having carefully examined the judgments of trial court and that of first Appellate Court, I find that the delay in filing the appeal not being the matter in issue in this appeal, this Court cannot interfere with the order impugned on the ground that challenge was made after 17 years, particularly when the order condoning the delay has attained finality up to this Court. Other aspects relating to the appointment of guardian ad litem and sufficiency/deficiency in oral and documentary evidence led by the respective parties, I find that the order impugned is an order of open remand where the first Appellate Court has left it open for the trial court to decide the suit within four months. 6. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, however makes it clear that since the suit has been remanded to the trial court, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations recorded in the impugned order. 7. It shall be open for both the parties to address the trial court after leading evidence both oral and documentary. 8. The trial court shall decide the suit expeditiously within a period of eight months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Sazia Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad