- (1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is decided finally at the admission stage.
(2.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants -defendants under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of CPC challenging the order dated 22.4.13 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Regular Appeal No. 15/12, whereby the appellate court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent -plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.4.12 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 636/09 and remanded the case to the trial court for deciding afresh in the light of the observations made in the impugned order. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Alok Chaturvedi for the appellants that the appellate court could not have remanded the case to the trial court without reversing the decree passed by the trial court and without finding the retrial necessary as contemplated in Rule 23A of Order XLI of CPC. According to him the appellate court has acted beyond the scope of Order XLI, while remanding the case to the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Khatoon Dukhtar (D) Through Lrs. Vs. Smt. Naraini Devi and Ors. 2013(3) WLC (Raj.) 616 and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Purushottam Reddy and Anr. Vs. Pratap Steels Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 686 in support of his submissions.
(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel Mr. M.C. Jain for the respondent has submitted that the impugned order passed by the appellate court being just and proper this court should not interfere with the same.;