Substantial compliance with appellate procedure upheld where property identity dispute required local investigation and commissioner appointment.

Where a first appeal turns substantially on the identity and boundaries of immovable property, substantial compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sufficient if the appellate court identifies the core issue, gives reasons, and leaves further questions open pending proper evidence. In such a dispute, local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an appropriate course to clarify the suit property and prevent prejudice. The remand directing appointment of a commissioner was therefore treated as valid, and the challenge to the remand order failed because further factual elucidation was needed before final adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the First Appellate Court failed to comply with the mandate of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the remand of the matter with a direction to appoint a commissioner for identifying the suit property was erroneous or caused prejudice to justice.

Issue (i): Whether the First Appellate Court failed to comply with the mandate of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The appellate judgment was examined in the context of the controversy being centred on the identity and boundaries of the suit property. The record showed that the First Appellate Court identified the core issue, gave reasons for its conclusion, and consciously kept the remaining questions open because further findings without expert evidence and local investigation could have resulted in prejudice. In the circumstances, the requirement of reasoned appellate adjudication was held to have been substantially met.

Conclusion: The First Appellate Court did not violate Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the remand of the matter with a direction to appoint a commissioner for identifying the suit property was erroneous or caused prejudice to justice.

Analysis: The dispute substantially turned on identification of the suit property and correlation of its boundaries with the survey records. In such a case, local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was considered appropriate to clarify the controversy. The remand was treated as a proper course to secure a complete and just adjudication, rather than as an error causing failure of justice.

Conclusion: The remand with a direction to appoint a commissioner was valid and did not cause injustice.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the remand order failed, and the dismissal of the appeal was sustained as the dispute required further factual elucidation before final adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy in a first appeal substantially turns on the identity and boundaries of immovable property, substantial compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is sufficient if the appellate court identifies the core issue, gives reasons, and remands the matter for local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to avoid failure of justice.

---