Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court

“The learned Trial Court had failed to give independent findings on issue No. 1... but simply decided the case on the basis of judgment, Ex. PX, which has been set-aside in appeal.”— In a seminal ruling the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, comprising Justice Sushil Kukreja, upheld a wholesale remand order, emphasizing that a Trial Court must record independent findings on title based on evidence, not merely on the outcome of a related case that was subsequently overturned.

The Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession of land in District Una, claiming that the Defendants were trespassers who had encroached upon the land and constructed a house. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants fraudulently procured revenue entries as Gair Marusi tenants.

The Defendant countered that she purchased the land via an agreement to sell from one Chanan, who had acquired proprietary rights under the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs. However, the decree was based almost exclusively on a judgment from a previous case (Ex. PX), which had held that the Defendant’s vendor was a trespasser.

The Twist in Appeal When the matter reached the Lower Appellate Court, the Defendant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to place on record a new judgment. It was revealed that the judgment "Ex. PX"—the sole basis of the Trial Court's decree—had been set aside by the Additional District Judge in a separate appeal. Consequently, the Lower Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court's decree and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The Plaintiffs appealed this remand to the High Court.

Court’s Analysis: The Necessity of Independent Findings Justice Kukreja rejected the Appellant's argument that the Lower Appellate Court should have decided the matter itself instead of remanding it. The High Court noted that the Trial Court had "disposed of the suit without recording its independent findings on Issue No. 1 (Title)."

By ignoring the oral and documentary evidence and anchoring the verdict entirely on "Ex. PX" (which no longer held the field), the Trial Court had committed a fundamental error. Once the foundation (Ex. PX) collapsed, the judgment built upon it could not stand.

The High Court held that the remand was not mechanical but necessary to ensure the Trial Court applied its judicial mind to the actual evidence on record regarding the plea of tenancy and ownership. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court for a fresh decision.

Date of Decision: 27th November, 2025