CWP No. 19576 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106) CWP No. 19576 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Shashi Gupta ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kuber Vilvas, Advocate and Mr. Yatin Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order 17.3.2026 (Annexure P-21) passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, Panchkula, whereby the order passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, Panchkula dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P-20) has been set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Maintenance Tribunal, Panchkula for fresh adjudication. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the concept of remanding the case by the Appellate Authority back to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as sub-Section (4) of Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 only empowers the Appellate Tribunal to either allow or reject the appeal given the object and purpose of the Act and the summary nature of the proceedings mentioned GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.08 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 19576 of 2026 -2- therein and does not confer any power in the Appellate Tribunal to remand the matter back. However, vide impugned order dated 17.3.2026, the learned Appellate Tribunal proceeded to remand the matter back to the Maintenance Tribunal for a fresh decision, which even otherwise is a vague and non-speaking order. Learned senior counsel also submits that the learned Appellate Authority should have passed an appropriate order which it deemed fit rather than remanding the case back to the Maintenance Tribunal. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in ‘Surindera Devi versus State of Punjab and others, reported in 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 484.’ 3. Notice of motion. 4. Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3-State. 5. Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the present petition and submit that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 8. Once, an appeal is preferred against an order, the Appellate Authority is required to consider all the aspects and decide about the validity of the said order. In case the order is valid, the same should be upheld and in case of finding any perverse illegality, the said order should be set aside by giving due reasons for the conclusion arrived at. 9. Further, the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to remand the case before it, is no longer res integra. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Surindera Devi’s case (supra), after GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.08 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 19576 of 2026 -3- recording detailed analysis, held that the Appellate Authority has no power to remand a case back. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment are as under:- “6. In this background, the meaning and intent of Section 16 of the Act assumes even more significance inasmuch as a bare reading of the same would reveal that while the appellate authority has been specifically conferred the power to examine the appeal and the records and either call for same before it from the Tribunal and thereafter either to allow it or reject it. The words ‘remand’ are missing in Section 16 of the Act, unlike the case under Order 41 Rules 23 and 25 of CPC where the appellate Court is specifically conferred the power of remand. In that context, for better appreciation the said Rules are reproduced herein below: “Order 41 Rule 23 of CPC Remand of case by Appellate Court : Where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal, the Appellate Court may, if it thinks fit, by order remand the case, and may further direct what issue or issues shall be tried in the case so remanded, and shall send a copy of its judgment and order to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, which directions to re-admit the suit under its original number in the register of civil suits, and proceed to determine the suit; and the evidence (if any) recorded during the original trial shall, subject to all just exceptions, be evidence during the trial after remand.” Xxxxxxxx 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.” 7. In the totality of circumstances and as an upshot of the above GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.08 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 19576 of 2026 -4- discussion, I am of the view that the appellate Tribunal is not conferred with the power of remand under Section 16 of the statute and upon entertaining the appeal must either reject or accept the same, wholly or partly as the case may be. Therefore, the impugned appellate order herein is not sustainable and is accordingly set- aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration and adjudication. The parties are at liberty to move appropriate application before the appellate Tribunal.” 10. Reverting to the case in hand, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits by giving due reasons for the conclusion arrived at. 11. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority remanding the case back is beyond its jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in view of the settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore. Accordingly, the order dated 17.3.2026 (Annexure P-21) passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside on this ground alone. The Appellate Authority is directed to pass a fresh order on the appeal preferred by respondent No. 4. As the parties are litigating and the senior citizen is more than 67 years of age, let the Appellate Authority pass appropriate order within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 04.8.2026. 12. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 06th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.08 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh