TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y wedded wife of the deceased Shobha Ram and she was not entitled to file the complaint for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The complainant filed Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2019 before this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by learned JMFC, Manali. The Court passed the following order:- "6. Since the afore document, was, not existing, on, the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, and, also when hence, he did not appraise its evidentiary worth, nor, applied thereon, the applicable thereto hence other statutory provisions, (i) whereupon it would not be befitting for this Court, to, construe that the afore germane evidence, has been misappraised, or, has remained unappreciated, nor also, it would be befitting for this Court, to suo motu, make any conclusion, vis-avis, the afore factum probandum, (ii) when hence, thereupon this Court would be untenably appropriating, to itself the judicial function, to be otherwise, performed by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. Consequently after allowing Cr.M.P. No. 283 of 2019, and, also necessarily hence, after quashing the impugned order, for, enabling, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be set aside. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivshankar and another Vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char AIR 2023 SC 1780, Chote Lal v. Kalyan Prasad, 1986 SCC OnLine Raj 17: 1986 RLW 363: AIR 1987 Raj 75, Ramabai v. Harbilas, 1996 SCC OnLine MP 39: 1996 MP LJ 1118 : (1997) 2 AP LJ (DNC) 36: AIR 1997 MP 90 and Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Raj Rani 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 249 in support of his submission. 8. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the document sought to be produced is highly relevant because it shows that total sale consideration was paid to the deceased and the cheque issued as a security was cancelled. This will have an important bearing on the question whether the cheque was issued in discharge of the legal liability or not. Hence, the learned Magistrate had rightly allowed the application. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Fateh Singh Mohan Singh Chauhan 2006 (7) SCC 529 and this Court in Sant Ram Vs. Tula Ram, Cr.MMO No. 1075 of 2023, decided on 26.2.2024 in support of his submission. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to in order to judge as to what is nature of it. In appeal before the District Judge, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was accepted and a particular document which is a sale deed of the year 1926 (or 1920) was ordered to be taken in evidence and the parties were allowed to lead evidence in proof of this document as well as in rebuttal to this evidence. After doing so, the trial court was to give a fresh decision. The order of the remand makes it very clear that the trial court has to proceed in a specified manner which is to admit a particular document in evidence and allow the parties to lead evidence to prove or disprove the same. Such a direction cannot be said to be an open remand so as to allow the parties to re-open other matters and permit the court to accept other documents which have not been admitted in evidence according to the directions of the first appellate court. The jurisdiction of the trial court is limited to the directions issued by the appellate court and it cannot go beyond this jurisdiction and admit documents which were not already on record. The learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity and illegali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellate court directs to make an enquiry on a particular point. It is not open to the lower court to re-open the finding of the appellate court. 10. In Chandan Mal v. Rawat Mal 1979 WLN 530: AIR 1980 Raj 139 the High Court remanded the suit back to the District Judge with the direction that he should allow the plaintiff an opportunity to examine one witness and then dispose of the appeal according to law. It was further directed that no evidence of any other nature would be recorded by way of rebuttal. After remand the first appellate court examined expert witnesses on behalf of both the parties with the consent of the parties. This procedure adopted by the District Judge was held to be illegal as it was in conflict with the direction given by the High Court and such a procedure cannot be adopted even with the consent of the parties." 14. A similar view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramabai (supra), wherein it was held that the learned Trial Court had limited jurisdiction in terms of the remand order. It can decide the matter only as per the directions issued by the Appellate Court. It was observed:- "8. The basic question, therefore, which is the subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge to allow an amendment of the pleadings which was outside the scope of the remand order." The order of remand had to be followed in its true spirit. The plaintiff by playing hide and seek had succeeded in getting his suit decreed whereas the suit was dismissed under the original judgment passed by the trial Court, which was set aside by the appellate Court, while remanding the case. After the last amendment, since the suit had reverted to the same position, could it be decreed by the trial Court later by violating the remand order? The lower appellate Court also committed an apparent error of law in confirming the later judgment and decree of the trial Court." ( Emphasis supplied ) 15. A similar view was taken in Bidya Devi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad, 2003 SCC OnLine Cal 215: AIR 2004 Cal 63 wherein it was observed: "5. In our view, it was so held rightly. Inasmuch as the Assessing Officer was bound by the said order of remand. The order of remand is confined only to the extent it was remanded. The Assessing Officer could not sit on appeal over the decision by the order of remand. The matters finally disposed of by the order of remand cannot be reopened when ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1972 Andhra Pradesh 250], Smt. Ramabai v. Harbilas [AIR 1997 Madhya Pradesh 90], Mohan Lal v. Anandibai [AIR 1971 SC 2177] and K. Veerabasappa v. The Court of Dist. Judge at Chitradurga [AIR 1979 Karnataka 40]. 7. From a perusal of the above judgments, it is clear that the law stands settled that the trial court must strictly adhere to the remand order. Any enlargement of scope would not be permissible and beyond jurisdiction. I need hardly dwell on the matter any further since it is evident from the judgment under challenge that the trial court has far exceeded its mandate which required the Controller to adjudicate upon the alternative accommodation. The Controller while exceeding his authority went on to hold that the previous conduct of the landlord disentitles him from an order of eviction under Section 14(i)(e), even though the previous order took into consideration the requirements of the landlord at the time when the petition was filed and held that the bona fide requirement did exist and stood proved. The crucial date for deciding the bona fides of the landlord is the date on which his application for eviction has been filed. Reference may be had to Gaya Prasad v. Prad....