MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, the defendant appellant (in short the defendant) under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. against the judgment dated 10.12.2007 of Additional District judge No. 4 Jaipur City Jaipur whereby the appeal filed by Gulab Chand Mittal, the plaintiff respondent No. 1 (in short 'the plaintiff') was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.
(2.) The brief facts leading to filing present appeal arc that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order of dismissal from service consequent upon a departmental enquiry dated 25.8.1998 and the order of the appellate authority dated 12.7.2001 be declared to be void and illegal violative and he be reinstated in service. The plaintiff stated that he was appointed as LDC in the office of defendant but he was appointed as Sanganak in the month of January 1977 and was promoted as Statistical Assistant. The plaintiff was appointed as Law and Inquiry Officer in the month of September 1994. The defendant abolished the post of Law and Inquiry Officer and reverted back the plaintiff on the post of Statistical Officer on 4.8.1995 and the plaintiff challenged the said order by filing writ petition bearing No. 3967/1995 before this Court and the same was allowed by the decision dated 3.7.1997. The plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet dated 26.2.1997 issued under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and on the basis of the enquiry the plaintiff was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.8.1998. The plaintiff filed the suit on the various grounds alleging to be violative of principles of natural justice. The defendant filed written statement denying averments of malafides and violation of principles of natural justice. The trial Court framed as many as 10 issues and plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited various documents from Ex.l to Ex.28. The defendant got examined three witnesses and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A54. After hearing both the parties the trial Court vide its decision dated 22.1.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff having decided issues 1 to 6 and issue No. 9 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant whereas issues Nos. 7 and 8 were decided against the defendant and consequently the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 22.1.2007 initially filed review petition before the trial Court and thereafter filed appeal before the DJ Jaipur City. The said appeal was transferred to the Court of ADJ No. 4 Jaipur City. During pendency of the appeal the plaintiff filed two applications under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. placing 12 more documents received by the plaintiff during pendency of the appeal. The appellant filed detailed reply to the application and stated that the documents alleged to have been placed on record along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. cannot be taken on record at this stage in view of provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 nor the documents are relevant. The appellate Court having heard the counsel for the parties on the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 allowed the applications and documents were taken on record and further remanded back the matter to the trial Court for fresh decision vide judgment dated 10.12.2007. Hence this appeal has been filed by the defendant. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant has contended that the appellate Court committed illegality in passing the impugned order remanding back the matter to the trial Court for fresh decision simply on the ground that the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 41 Rule 27 was allowed. He has further contended that the order passed by the appellate Court had remitted the matter for fresh decision without cither framing any additional issue or without recording any satisfaction/finding without any decision on the appeal on merit. He has further contended that the appellate Court has got no power to remand the matter for fresh decision in absence of specific reversal of a decree in the appeal that to without recording a finding that retrial is necessary. The learned counsel for the defendant in support of his contention placed reliance on Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham of Bombay and others, AIR 1965 SC 1008, Ramzan v. Alladin, III 1989(1) Current Civil Cases 460, K.R. Mohan Reddy v. M/s. Net Work Inc. Rep. Tr. M.D., AIR 2008 SC 579, P. Purushottam Reddy and another v. M/s. Pratap Steels Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 771 and Hameed (D) by LR's and others v. Kummottummal Kunhi PP. Amma (D) by LR's and others, 2006(2) WLC page 45.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended that the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court remanding the matter back to the trial Court for fresh decision and allowing the application of the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and taking documents on record is just and proper and it is not without jurisdiction. The appellate Court has ample power to remand the matter. In support of his submission he placed reliance on Chote Lal v. Kalyan Prasad and others, AIR 1987 Raj. 75, Wadi v. Amilal and others, 2002 WLC (SC) Civil 726, Ramangouda and Anr. v. Basavarajappa Rajendra Gunj Raichur, AIR 1969 Mysore 111 and Kalaiselvi and others v. Govindasamy and another, 2000 AIHC 792.;