Remand order challenge barred after retrial participation and acceptance; later separate appeal could not be maintained.

An appeal against an order of remand is not maintainable where the appellant accepts the remand, participates in the retrial on the merits, and then allows the decree passed after retrial to stand without appealing it. The court applied the settled principle that a party must elect either to accept or repudiate the remand order; by contesting the suit again without protest, the appellant was treated as having accepted the remand. Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not change that rule, so a later separate challenge to the remand was barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal against an order of remand remained maintainable after the appellant accepted the remand, participated in the retrial on the merits, and did not appeal from the decree passed after retrial.

Analysis: The appeal was against an interlocutory order of remand, but the appellant proceeded with the retrial without protest, contested the suit on merits, and suffered a decree at that stage without appealing against it. The Court held that the appellant had to elect either to accept or repudiate the remand order, and by taking part in the retrial and allowing the proceedings to conclude, he was treated as having accepted the remand. The Court also held that Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not alter the settled rule that such conduct precluded a later challenge to the remand order.

Conclusion: The appeal against the remand order was not maintainable and could not be entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: A party who accepts a remand order and submits to a retrial on the merits cannot later challenge that remand by a separate appeal after participating in the retrial and allowing the resulting decree to stand.

---