IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 730 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 ____________________________________________________ Sh. Balbir Singh & another ...Petitioners. Versus Sh. Ramesh Chand & others ...Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge(oral) The instant petition arises out of the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2025, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., whereby the appeal filed by the present respondents was allowed, and after framing the additional issues, the case was remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity to the parties. 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the suit for grant of decree for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction and for possession was filed by plaintiffs Lal Singh, Balbir 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Singh and Kuldeep in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kangra, District Kangra, HP on 20th January, 2007. 3. The suit came to be resisted by the defendants, Smt. Rattani Devi & others, by refuting the claim as set up by the plaintiffs. The defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit as filed by the plaintiffs. 4. The learned trial Court framed the issues in the matter and directed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. Finally, the learned Civil Judge, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. vide its judgment and decree dated 20th January, 2018, decreed the suit to the effect that the suit land is exclusively owned and possessed and cultivated by the plaintiffs along with the other co- sharers, and entry in the column of possession in the revenue records in favour of the defendants was held to be wrong, illegal, and void, and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land in any manner. 5. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants preferred an appeal invoking the provisions of Section 96 of the CPC in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. on 19th February, 2018. 6. The First Appellate Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 17th September, 2025, accepted the appeal as filed by the defendants, and after framing three additional issues, the case was 3 remanded back to the learned trial Court, with a direction to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity to the respective parties. 7. Feeling dissatisfied against the judgment of remand back, the plaintiffs/petitioners have approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is contended by Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay Kumar Thakur, Advocate that the order of remand as passed by the learned First Appellate Court is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the learned Court below has not adhered to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of CPC, and in the absence of doing so, great prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. 9. On the other hand, Mr. R.K.Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, has defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned First Appellate Court, after framing three additional issues, has rightly remanded the matter to the learned trial Court. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that this Court will not interfere in the well- reasoned judgment as passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. 11. The provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of CPC read as follows: 4 “25. Where Appellate Court may frame issues and refer them for trial to Court whose decree appealed from:- “Where the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact, which appears to the Appellate Court essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits the Appellate Court may, if necessary, frame issues, and refer the same for trial to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, and in such case shall direct such Court to take the additional evidence required; and such Court shall proceed to try such issues, and shall return the evidence to the Appellate Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor [within such time as may be fixed by the Appellate Court or extended by it from time to time.” 12. The provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of CPC as contained in the CPC are unambiguous and specific, whereby it has been stipulated that in case the learned First Appellate Court frames additional issues, in that event, the matter shall be referred for trial to the Court from whose decree the appeal has been preferred, and in such case, the Appellate Court shall direct such Court to take the additional evidence required, and such Court shall proceed to try such issues and shall return the evidence to the appellate court together with its findings. 13. 13. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that at the most, it was incumbent upon the learned First Appellate Court that after framing the additional issues, the findings should have been called from the learned trial Court, and after 5 receiving the said report, he should have himself proceeded in the appeal instead of making wholesale remand. 14. Such legal proposition has not been disputed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. However, he further submits that without conceding anything, he insists on the fact that the impugned judgment is legal and valid. 15. The provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC are very specific, and the learned First Appellate Court has failed to adhere to the aforesaid provisions by remanding the matter to the trial Court. 16. This Court has no other option but to quash, set-aside and modify the impugned judgment of remand as passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. with the direction to the learned First Appellate Court that he shall call for the report on the additional issues from the learned trial Court, and after receiving the report, shall proceed in the appeal and decide the same in accordance with law. 17. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the impugned judgment of remand as passed by the learned First Appellate Court is quashed, set-aside and modified. 18. The learned First Appellate Court is directed to proceed in the matter after receiving the report from the learned trial Court on the additional issues as framed by it and take the same to its logical end. 6 19. The present petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. All the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge July 21, 2026 (Nisha)