IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sugato Majumdar FMA/923/2026 TAMAL KRISHNA MONDAL & ORS VS ORAMA BALA GHOSH & ORS For the Appellants : Ms. Sarbananada Sanyal, Adv. Ms. Poulomi Chakraborty, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. N.G. Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Anindita Banerjee, Adv. Hearing concluded on : 22.09.2026 Judgment on : 24.09.2026 Sugato Majumdar, J. : The instant First Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred from the Judgment and Decree dated 19/12/2014 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bolpur, Birbhum, being the First Appellate Court whereby the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Bolpur in Title Suit No. 17 of 2007 dated 14/09/2011 was reversed. The suit was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff, praying for declaration and injunction. The suit was dismissed on contest as the Trial Court came to the conclusion that Plaintiff had failed to establish her case. An appeal was preferred which was registered as Title Appeal No. 8 of 2012. The First Appellate Court set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Trial P a g e | 2 Court and passed order of remand. It was further directed that the suit be re- admitted to the original file and decided afresh. A further direction was given to the Trial Court to consider and appreciate all evidences already on record, along with fresh pieces of evidence. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal is preferred. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant invited attention to the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court whereby an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed, yet, the suit was remanded to the Trial Court for appreciation of evidence and taking evidence afresh. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the order of remand is bad in law offending the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that due consideration was given by the First Appellate Court to the material on record. However, both the Counsels agreed that once an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed, the Appellate Court itself could have accepted evidence and decide the appeal on the basis of additional evidences as well as evidence on record. Remanding the suit for fresh evidence is, of course, redundant. On hearing both the Counsels and on perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of view that the First Appellate Court committed a serious error of law in passing the impugned judgment inasmuch as it allowed the Appellant to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and at the same time remanded the suit for adducing fresh evidence depriving the Appellant of the right allowed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil P a g e | 3 Procedure, 1908. The First Appellate Court in fact approbated and reprobated in the same breath. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order demands interference. This Court, however, makes no comment on the order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court. The impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bolpur, Birbhum in Title Appeal No. 8 of 2012 dated 19/12/2014 is hereby set aside. In view of the fact that the Appellant was allowed to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the First Appellate Court shall receive evidence, if any, adduced by the Appellant and shall decide the appeal on merit preferably within a period of six months. This Court refrains from commending anything on the merit of the appeal. Accordingly, the instant Appeal stands disposed of with a direction to transmit the Trial Court Record forthwith to the First Appellate Court along with a copy of this order. (Sugato Majumdar, J.)