TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Trial Court Exceeded Jurisdiction by Admitting Unsanctioned Documents; Order Set Aside for Irregularity and Illegality.</h1> <h3>Chote Lal Versus Kalyan Prasad and Ors.</h3> The appellate Ct remanded a partition suit to the trial Ct with specific instructions to admit a particular document and allow related evidence. The trial ... - Issues:Jurisdiction of trial Court after remand by appellate Court.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the trial Court post a remand by the appellate Court in a partition suit. The trial Court initially decreed the suit, but the appellate Court remanded the matter, directing the trial Court to allow the parties to prove or disprove a specific document. The key issue is whether the trial Court, after the remand, can entertain new documents or matters beyond the remand order.The petitioner argues that the trial Court's jurisdiction post-remand is confined to the directions of the appellate Court and cannot entertain new documents or issues. Conversely, the non-petitioners contend that in an open remand, the trial Court can dispose of the suit as per law without limitations imposed by the appellate Court.Citing precedents, the judgment discusses the scope of trial Court's jurisdiction post-remand. It highlights that the trial Court must adhere to the remand order's specifications and cannot exceed the limits set by the appellate Court. The judgment emphasizes that the trial Court's powers post-remand depend on the nature of the remand order - whether it is open or specific.The judgment analyzes various case laws to determine the trial Court's authority post-remand. It distinguishes between open remands, where trial Courts have broader discretion, and specific remands, where trial Courts must adhere strictly to the appellate Court's directions.In this case, the order of remand was specific, directing the trial Court to admit a particular document and allow evidence related to it. The judgment concludes that the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by admitting new documents not specified in the remand order. Consequently, the revision is accepted, and the trial Court's order is set aside for acting with material irregularity and illegality.
TaxTMI 
