Remand Is Not Redundancy, But Rectification: Bombay High Court Upholds Return of Suit to Trial Court to Decide Agriculturist Status of Buyer

"Where the trial court omits to frame an issue which strikes at the very enforceability of a contract, the appellate court not only can—but must—remand the matter for proper adjudication." - In a judgment that reinforces the appellate court’s power to correct foundational omissions in trial proceedings, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, on 7 October 2025, dismissed a challenge to a remand order in a suit for specific performance of sale of agricultural land. The core question was whether the trial court’s failure to frame an issue on the plaintiff’s status as an agriculturist warranted remand. Justice Pravin S. Patil answered unequivocally in the affirmative.

The appellant, Subhadrabai Thakre, had sought specific performance of a 2002 agreement to purchase agricultural land. Though the trial court decreed the suit, the District Judge, Nagpur, in appeal, remanded the matter back, directing the trial court to frame and decide additional issues—particularly whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.

Justice Patil held that this issue “goes to the root of the enforceability of the sale”, and without resolving it, the trial court’s decree suffered from a “foundational deficiency” that could not be ignored on appeal.

“Agriculturist or Not? This Isn’t Mere Description—It’s a Legal Precondition for Buying Farmland”

"The requirement that only an agriculturist may purchase agricultural land under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act is not a technicality—it is a jurisdictional bar. A decree passed without addressing it cannot stand."

At the heart of the appeal was a clause of the 1958 Act that prohibits the transfer of agricultural land to non-agriculturists. Although the defendants had clearly raised this objection in their written statement, the trial court had not framed any issue on the plaintiff’s eligibility.

Justice Patil ruled that this omission was fatal: "The trial court failed to frame the issue whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist or whether she had obtained prior permission for the transaction. That alone justifies remand."

The Court emphasized that the status of the buyer as an agriculturist is a condition precedent to validating a contract for sale of agricultural land. Without examining it, no meaningful judgment on specific performance could be delivered.

“Appellate Courts Must Use Rule 25 CPC Not Just to Overturn, But to Cure—Where Trial Courts Omit Material Issues, Remand Isn’t Optional”

“The power to remand under Order 41 Rule 25 is a safeguard against defective trials where crucial factual issues remain unaddressed.”

Rejecting the argument that the remand order amounted to giving the defendants a second chance to fill gaps, the Court cited Order 41 Rule 25 CPC, which empowers appellate courts to frame omitted issues and refer them back for trial when necessary for a proper decision.

“Remand in this case is not a luxury—it is a legal necessity. The appellate court rightly exercised its discretion to ensure that a key legal condition is not bypassed,” the Court stated.

Justice Patil further clarified that although appellate courts do have power to decide cases on existing records, they cannot do so where no evidence was ever led on an essential point, such as here.

The judgment quoted the Supreme Court's ruling in J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole (2017) 14 SCC 207, to underscore that “issues not framed but essential to the right decision of the suit justify remand.”

“Unregistered Agreements Can’t Escape Scrutiny—Even If Exhibited Without Objection, Their Validity Under Stamp Law Remains a Legal Question”

"Admission of a document in evidence is not the same as declaring it admissible in law. Courts can, and should, still examine legal bar under the Maharashtra Stamp Act."

Another significant issue was the admissibility of the unregistered agreement of sale, which had been exhibited without objection at trial. The plaintiff argued that under settled law, its admissibility could not be re-opened.

Justice Patil partly agreed, observing that “once an insufficiently stamped document is admitted in evidence without objection, its admissibility cannot be re-examined”, citing the Bombay High Court’s earlier ruling in Mahendra Deshbratar v. Laxmanrao Kadu.

However, he made a crucial distinction: “The appellate court’s direction was not to re-open the issue already admitted without objection, but to allow the trial court to examine whether the statutory requirements of stamp law were met—especially as the document is central to the plaintiff’s claim.”

Thus, the Court permitted the trial court to examine the legal sufficiency of the document, even if the fact of its exhibition wasn’t disputed.

“Remand Not Routine—But When Trial Court Omits To Ask the Right Questions, Appellate Court Must Step In”

"An appellate court must be slow to remand—but when the trial itself has proceeded without essential inquiry, remand becomes a vehicle for justice, not delay."

Anticipating the argument that remand should not be used casually, the High Court referred to the apex court's caution in Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) 11 SCC 277, which warned against routine remands that prolong litigation.

But Justice Patil noted that this was no routine case:

“Where the trial court has failed to even frame an issue on a statutory bar, no amount of appellate appreciation of evidence can cure the defect.”

Further, the appellate court had deliberately refrained from recording any finding on the earlier issues, to avoid prejudicing the trial court’s reconsideration. This, according to Justice Patil, was a careful and lawful exercise of appellate discretion.

“Delay Attributable to Defendants—But That Alone Doesn’t Defeat Need for Truth”: High Court Imposes Cost of ₹15,000 on Defendants

Acknowledging the delay and procedural laxity on the part of the defendants—who did not apply for framing of additional issues during trial—the Court refused to allow that failure to compromise the outcome.

However, Justice Patil held the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the delay, directing the defendants to pay ₹15,000 to the appellant within 15 days, and in any case before framing of the new issues by the trial court.

 “Let the Trial Court Ask the Questions It Should Have Asked the First Time”

Concluding the judgment, the High Court reiterated that the remand was not to fill evidentiary gaps, but to decide legal conditions essential to the enforceability of the suit:

“The trial court must now determine whether the plaintiff was qualified under tenancy law to purchase the land, and whether the agreement satisfies stamp law requirements. Only then can the relief of specific performance be lawfully granted.”

Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the remand order upheld, paving the way for a fresh trial on core legal questions that were previously ignored.

Date of Decision: 7 October 2025