Remand Not a Cure for Evidentiary Deficiency: Bombay High Court on Limits of Revisional Jurisdiction under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act
Introduction:
In the matter of Kapil Satish Phalke & Anr. v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon & Orsi, the Bombay High Court (‘the Court’) addressed the scope of revisional jurisdiction under s. 3(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (‘the Act’). The issue before the Court was whether the Sub-Divisional Officer, exercising revisional powers, could remand a matter back to the Mamlatdar merely due to an allegedly defective panchnama without examining the sufficiency of other available evidence. The Court held that such a remand, lacking legal necessity, was improper and contrary to settled legal principles.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioners had initiated proceedings before the Mamlatdar under the Act seeking removal of obstruction from certain land. The Mamlatdar declined relief on the basis that the panchnama an essential evidentiary document was not properly drawn and thus could not be relied upon. The Mamlatdar concluded that, in the absence of a procedurally sound panchnama, the claim could not be sustained.
Aggrieved, the Petitioners filed a revision application before the Sub-Divisional Officer (‘SDO’), Koregaon. While the SDO agreed with Mamlatdar’s finding regarding the defective nature of the panchnama, he did not proceed to assess the merits of the case based on other material evidence. Instead, he remanded the matter back to Mamlatdar for fresh adjudication. The Petitioners, therefore, approached the Court under a. 227 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of the remand order.
Held:
The Court held that the SDO’s decision to remand the matter was legally unsustainable and amounted to a failure to discharge the revisional jurisdiction entrusted to him. The Court reiterated that an order of remand cannot be passed routinely or for the sole purpose of curing evidentiary gaps or procedural irregularities, such as those concerning the panchnama in the present case.
The Court observed that the revisional authority had already recorded a finding that the panchnama was defective. Once such a finding is made, the authority is duty-bound to evaluate whether the Mamlatdar’s refusal of relief could still be upheld based on the remaining material on record. The Court stressed that remanding a matter merely to fill evidentiary lacunae is impermissible and results in avoidable delays and multiplicity of proceedings, which run contrary to the interests of justice.
It was further emphasized that remand may be justified only where the lower authority has completely failed to consider a material document or where adjudication requires parties to lead fresh evidence. Neither condition was met in this case. The revisional authority had access to the entire record and was fully equipped to decide the matter on merits. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 and restored Revision Application No. 6 of 2023 on the file of the SDO with a direction to decide the matter within six weeks based on the existing material.
Analysis:
This ruling stands as a clear reaffirmation of the principle that revisional or appellate authorities must adjudicate on merits rather than resorting to remand as a procedural escape. The Bombay High Court rightly criticized the SDO’s approach, emphasizing that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities are not permitted to abdicate their responsibility under the guise of procedural correction. The power to remand is not meant to grant parties a second opportunity to rectify evidentiary shortcomings but must be exercised sparingly and only when it is legally warranted.
By underscoring that remand cannot be used to cover up procedural or evidentiary defects that could have been resolved through proper adjudication, the Court has ensured that parties are not subjected to repeated litigation and unnecessary delays. This approach resonates with long-standing principles of civil procedure and natural justice that prioritize finality and efficiency in dispute resolution.
Authored by Ascend Legal Editorial Team. The opinions expressed are personal and do not constitute any legal advocacy.
