Waiver of remand objection bars later challenge; Article 227 cannot unsettle proceedings after acquiescence.

A party that submits to a remand order without objection waives the right to challenge that remand later. After the appellate tribunal remanded the matter and the respondent participated in the fresh inquiry, the High Court should not have treated the remand as illegal or upset the ensuing orders under Article 227. Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to unsettle proceedings where the party had acquiesced in the remand and no surviving objection remained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with and set aside the findings recorded after remand when the respondent had submitted to the remand order without objection.

Analysis: The appellate tribunal had remanded the matter after finding the original determination erroneous, and the respondent did not challenge the propriety or validity of that remand either before the authorities below or at the stage when the matter proceeded after remand. By submitting to the remand and participating in the fresh enquiry, the respondent waived the right to object to the remand order. In these circumstances, the High Court was not justified in treating the remand as illegal and in upsetting the subsequent orders passed in consequence of that remand under Article 227.

Conclusion: The challenge to the remand was not maintainable after waiver, and the High Court's interference was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that submits to a remand order without objection waives the right to challenge that remand later, and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to unsettle such proceedings in the absence of a surviving objection.

---