February 23, 2026: The High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld an order sending back a long-pending ancestral land dispute in Durg district to the trial court for fresh consideration, saying the earlier remand was legally justified.
The decision was delivered by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru in MA No. 20 of 2026. The appeal was filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging a remand order passed by the District Judge, Patan.
The case concerns agricultural land in Village Bohardih, Tehsil Patan, District Durg. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Bholaram Sahu. They had approached the trial court seeking declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction, claiming a half share in what they described as joint family property.
According to them, Bholaram and Ashwani Kumar were real brothers and co-owners of agricultural lands recorded in Bholaram’s name in the 1994–95 revenue records. After Bholaram’s death in 2012, his heirs claimed that no formal partition had taken place. They alleged that Ashwani Kumar had got his name entered in the revenue records and sold parts of the land without their consent.
The trial court accepted the plaintiffs’ case. It held that the land was ancestral property and declared 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 restrained further sale of the property.
The defendants then filed a first appeal. They also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to place additional documents on record, including certified copies of earlier court judgments and details of pending proceedings.
The first appellate court allowed the application. Instead of deciding the appeal on merits, it set aside the trial court’s decree and sent the matter back for fresh hearing. It directed that Sumitra Bai and Kamla Bai, daughters of Laxmi Bai, be added as parties to the case, holding that they were necessary for a proper decision. It also directed the trial court to consider the newly admitted documents after giving all parties a fair opportunity to respond.
The plaintiffs challenged this remand before the High Court. They argued that the appellate court had acted mechanically, without first setting aside the trial court’s findings on merits, and that it had wrongly allowed additional evidence.
The High Court examined Section 99 of the CPC, which deals with errors that do not affect the merits of a case, and noted that the law makes an exception for non-joinder of necessary parties. Justice Guru observed that failure to include necessary parties is not a minor procedural defect. In this case, the absence of Sumitra Bai and Kamla Bai meant that all issues relating to the property could not be properly decided.
On the issue of additional evidence, the Court said that once the appellate court allows such evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, it has the discretion either to record the evidence itself or to send the case back to the trial court under Rule 28. That choice lies within the court’s judicial discretion.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole, the High Court said that when an appellate court gives clear reasons for ordering a remand, it is not required to decide every issue on merits before doing so.
Finding that the appellate court had given valid reasons, especially regarding non-joinder of necessary parties and consideration of additional documents, the High Court held that there was no legal error. It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the remand order.
The case will now go back to the trial court for fresh adjudication after adding the necessary parties and examining 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 State: Mr. Anand Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate.
