Ram Labhaya, J.:— This is a petition of revision from the order of the learned Additional Sub-Judge, U.A.D dated 11-3-1950 by which the order of the trial Court dismissing plaintiffs suit was reversed and the case remanded to the trial Court for a de novo trial.
2. The main question in the case was whether the property originally belonged to a joint family and was allotted to the plaintiff on partition.
3. Other questions arising in the case formed the subject-matters of issues 3 to 6.
4. The learned Additional Sub-Judge was of the view that the suit had been disposed of on insufficient evidence. He found from the evidence on the record that a document evidencing the alleged partition existed. This document had not been produced or called for by any of the parties including the plaintiff. In his view the plaintiff was a helpless widow with no one to advice her. He seemed to think that the circumstances of the case were such that the Court should have called for the document. He, therefore, remanded the case for a fresh trial presumably exercising his discretionary powers under Section 151 of the CPC. In his order he did not refer to any provision of the Code when directing remand of the suit for retrial.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff had the fullest opportunity for producing evidence. If she had failed to produce any relevant evidence, there was no occasion for ordering a retrial, and the Court in ordering a remand had exercised its jurisdiction wit material irregularity.
6. All the High Courts with the exception Allahabad High Court are now agreed that a Appellate Court has an inherent power ex debit justitiae to remand a case for retrial. We are in respectful agreement with this view. The Court therefore, had the jurisdiction to remand the case under Section 151 of the CPC, in the exercise of its inherent powers. The order reverses the decision of the trial Court by which the suit was dismissed an it directs a retrial of the suit. This order is ??? covered either by O. 41, R. 23 or R. 25. It ??? appropriately be placed only under Section 151 of the CPC. This is not disputed. All that is urged that even in the exercise of its inherent power the Court should not have set aside the decision of the Court below when plaintiff on account ??? her negligence or default failed to produce son evidence which may possibly have been relevant Viewed from a purely technical stand point, ??? argument is not without force. The question whether the exercise of discretion by the Low Appellate Court, in the circumstances of this ??? should be interfered with.
7. There is considerable divergence of ??? opinion on the point whether an order of remand which could be placed only under Section 151 of the CPC is at all revisable. It has been held in son cases that such an order of remand is not a ??? decided within the meaning of S. 115. ??? view taken is that no revision lies in such case as another remedy by way of appeal against ??? decree after remand is open to the aggrieved ???. There are cases in support of the contrary view also. We need not resolve this conflict for purposes of this case, as we are not inclined to ??? with the order of the Lower Appellate Court the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction ??? is entirely discretionary. The High Court is ??? bound to interfere on an extremely technical view in every case where an order has been made ??? regularly unless grave injustice or hardship ??? result from a failure to do so. The order in question is calculated to advance substantial just and though not strictly regular, may not be interfered with in revision.
8. We, therefore, dismiss the petition ??? make no order as to costs.
Thadani, C.J:— I agree.
9. Petition dismissed.