News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 164 | 2026:CGHC:9205
February 23, 2026 : High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld a first appellate court’s decision to remand a long-running ancestral land dispute in Durg district back to the trial court, holding that the remand was justified due to non-joinder of necessary parties and the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage.
The judgment was delivered on February 23, 2026, by Hon’ble Justice Bibhu Datta Guru in MA No. 20 of 2026. The appeal had been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the remand order passed by the District Judge, Patan.
The case revolves around agricultural land situated in Village Bohardih, Tehsil Patan, District Durg. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of late Bholaram Sahu, sought declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction, claiming a half share in what they described as joint family property.
According to the plaintiffs, Bholaram and Ashwani Kumar were real brothers and co-owners of several agricultural parcels recorded in Bholaram’s name during the 1994–95 revenue records. After Bholaram’s death in 2012, his heirs asserted their entitlement to his share, alleging that no formal partition had taken place and that Ashwani Kumar had unilaterally got his name entered in revenue records and executed sale deeds without their consent.
The trial court had accepted the plaintiffs’ case, holding that the disputed land was ancestral property and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a one-half share. It also declared certain sale deeds executed in favour of a third party as void and granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining further alienation.
Aggrieved by the trial court decree, the defendants filed a first appeal and moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce additional documents, including certified copies of earlier judgments and pending proceedings.
The first appellate court allowed the application and, instead of deciding the appeal on merits, set aside the trial court decree and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It directed the trial court to implead Sumitra Bai and Kamla Bai, daughters of Laxmi Bai, as necessary parties and to afford an opportunity to all parties to address the newly admitted documents.
The plaintiffs challenged this remand before the High Court, arguing that the appellate court had acted mechanically, without reversing findings on merits, and had improperly allowed additional evidence without foundational pleadings.
The High Court examined the scope of Section 99 of the CPC, particularly the proviso dealing with non-joinder of necessary parties. It held that the omission to implead necessary parties is not a mere procedural irregularity and squarely falls within the exception carved out in the proviso to Section 99.
Justice Guru observed that in the absence of Sumitra Bai and Kamla Bai, who were legal heirs connected to the disputed property, the trial court could not have effectively adjudicated all questions in controversy.
On the issue of additional evidence, the Court noted that once the appellate court allowed the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, it had the discretion under Rule 28 either to take evidence itself or to remit the matter to the trial court. The choice between these two courses lies within judicial discretion.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole, the High Court reiterated that when an appellate court forms an opinion that remand is necessary and assigns cogent reasons, it is not required to record findings on the merits of every issue.
The Court found that the appellate court had assigned sufficient reasons for remand, particularly the non-joinder of necessary parties and the need to consider additional certified documents. It held that there was no apparent legal error warranting interference.
Concluding that the first appellate court had exercised its powers properly and within the framework of Order XLI Rules 23A, 27 and 28 CPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the remand order. The matter will now return to the trial court for fresh adjudication after impleadment of the necessary parties and consideration of the additional evidence.
Case Reference : MA No. 20 of 2026, Hemant Kumar Sahu & Others v. Ashwani Kumar & Others — For the Appellants: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate; For Respondent No. 1: Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate; For the Respondent/State: Mr. Anand Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate.
