IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 19 of 2024 Khalid Anwar @ Khalid Khan, aged about 37 years, son of Late Abdul Karim, resident of Hatikhana Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioner -Versus- 1. Mazharun Nishan, wife of Md. Zahiruddin 2. Md. Zahiruddin, son of Late Gani Haider Both residents of Hatikhana Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties 3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi … Opposite Party 4. Bibi Amna Khatoon, wife of Late Abdul Karim Khan, resident of Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) 5. Aasia Praveen, wife of Late Nurul Hoda and daughter of Late Abdul Karim Khan, resident of Doranda Kumhar Toli, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) 6. Sufia Praveen, wife of Md. Hussain @ Raju and daughter of Late Abdul Karim Khan, resident of Kantatoli, Sharma Compound, Tata Road, P.O. & P.S. Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) 7. Md. Yusuf Khan 8. Md. Yonus Khan 9. Abdul Hafiz Khan 10. Md. Zubair Khan 11. Md. Suaib Khan 12. Abdul Salam Khan Nos. 7 to 12 sons of Late Abdul Karim Khan, residents of Hatikhana Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Proforma Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, A.C. to A.A.G.-V For O.P. No.1 : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate ----- 05/06.01.2025 Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for opposite party no.1. -1- C.M.P. No. 19 of 2024 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-XXI, Ranchi in Original Suit No.1394 of 2019 arising out of Title Suit No.204 of 2010, contained in Annexure-5, by which, the learned Court has directed the plaintiffs to adduce the evidence on the new issue framed pursuant to the remand by the learned Appellate Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the remand order was not made for taking any further evidence, however, the learned Court has passed the order to adduce evidence and to refute the same by the defendants, which is not in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the State and opposite party no.1 jointly opposed the prayer and submit that on the remand, new issue was made and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was made as one of the defendant. They further submit that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. It is an admitted position that after dismissal of the suit, an appeal was preferred being Title Appeal No.11 of 2017, which was allowed vide judgment dated 04.02.2019 by the learned Appellate Court and the matter was restored to the learned Trial Court with direction to make further one of the issue and to implead the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as one of the defendant and in view of that, the learned Trial Court has framed new issue in light of the order of the learned Appellate Court and directed to adduce evidence only in respect of newly framed issue in the suit and the defendants were provided opportunity to refute the same. This order was -2- C.M.P. No. 19 of 2024 passed considering that the evidence of the other issues have already been adduced by both the sides. If such a situation is there on the remand, the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order. 6. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, the petition is, hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/ -3- C.M.P. No. 19 of 2024