Remand under Order XLI is exceptional; the appellate court must decide on existing evidence when merits can be determined.

A remand under Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be ordered routinely, because it prolongs litigation and is justified only where a re-trial is necessary, the existing evidence is insufficient, there was no real trial, or a party suffered material prejudice from lack of opportunity to adduce evidence. Where the record already contains evidence enabling proper appellate determination, the first appellate court should decide the appeal on merits rather than remand, even if the trial court omitted issues or left some factual questions unresolved. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's remand was unjustified and that the first appeal had to be heard and decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial court instead of deciding the first appeal on merits when the evidence was already on record.

Analysis: A remand is not to be ordered routinely because it prolongs litigation and is warranted only where a re-trial is necessary, the evidence on record is insufficient for disposal, there was no real trial, or a party suffered material prejudice due to lack of adequate opportunity to lead evidence. Where evidence has already been adduced and the appellate court can render a decision on appreciation of that evidence, remand should ordinarily be avoided even if the trial court omitted to frame issues or decide some questions of fact. In such a case, the first appellate court may instead resort to the procedural course contemplated by Order XLI, including calling for findings on specific issues if required.

Conclusion: The remand was unjustified and the appeal succeeded; the first appeal was required to be heard and decided on merits by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand under Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is impermissible where the appellate court can dispose of the appeal on the existing evidence and should be reserved for cases requiring a re-trial or further evidence.

---