IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (Ord.) 209 of 2008. Date of decision May 25, 2009. Sh. Surinder Kumar and another …Appellants. Versus Sh. Dhani Ram and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the order of remand made by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Dhani Ram. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - In appeal before the learned Court below, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on issue No. 13 on the ground that it is barred by limitation. All the other issues have been left undecided. The plaintiff appealed against the decree on a number of grounds and the Appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court, holding that the trial Court should decide the suit afresh on all issues rather than only deciding it on the issue of limitation. The Court directs that the parties should be heard again and then a decision arrived at and not merely dismiss the suit on the ground of limitation. The appellate Court relied upon the decision of this Court in Prithvi Raj Jhingta & another v. Gopal Singh and another, AIR 2007, H.P. 11 and M/S. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Gustavo Ranato da Cruz Pinto and others, AIR 1985 SC 735. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the ratio of the judgment in P.Purushottam Reddy and another v. Pratap Steels Ltd. , (2002) 2 SCC 686 mandates that by virtue of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, remand is illegal. He submits - 3 - that there is ample material on record to allow the learned District Judge to have disposed of the case. He submits that the Court in Purushottam Reddy’s case (supra) has laid down as a law that remand should be avoided. He relies upon the dictum of the Court holding: “To wit, the superior Court, if it finds that the judgment under appeal has not disposed of the case satisfactorily in the manner required by Order 20 Rule 3 or Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and hence it is no judgment in the eye of law, it may set aside the same and send the matter back for rewriting the judgment so as to protect valuable rights of the parties. An appellate Court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule 23-A or Rule 25 CPC. An unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life and, therefore, must be avoided.” True, remand should be the last resort. But this does not imply that the trial Court or the appellate Court should give short - 4 - shrift to the duty imposed upon it for adjudication by deciding the case on all points/ issues raised. The trial Court has taken a short cut in disposing the entire case by merely considering the point on limitation and conveniently forgetting that the other issues are inter linked with it. I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of and interim orders vacated. May 25, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.