 Good evening friends, and as and when we connect with Justice Hari Prashad, now a designated senior. We always find that his journey is always truthful. The last time we met, he had been recently designated. Now we find him in the new office, so it seems that it is not only lucky for beyond law, but it also seems to be very lucky for Justice Hari Prashad, a senior advocate. Though the topic for today is different types of demands under the CPC, but I would say that demand and demand are a common connotation. And we may not have a demand, but there's always a demand of Justice Hari Prashad for sharing his knowledge. And being a weekend, he had a tight schedule here to go in the evening as well as for tomorrow. But his dedication for the fraternity is immense and that keeps us not only him going, but also the team of Beyond Law CLC. So we wish that this office turns out the best of the legal brains and it helps in the legal empowerment of the society, not only through the YouTubes with the channels like Beyond Law CLC, but also all other platforms because we know that you're immensely popular amongst the masses as well as classes. Here I will connote masses and classes would mean the legal fraternity and legal minds and legal mindsets. Without taking further time, I would request sir to share this knowledge. Over to you sir. Thank you. Thank you my dear Vikas for the kind words. I don't know whether I deserve such an appreciation. Anyway, I'm extremely happy that you are very kind enough to acknowledge my humble attempt to do service to the legal fraternity to the extent possible at my level. Yes, good evening to all my dear friends. Now today we are going to see what are the different types of remand orders possible under the Code of Civil Procedure in 1908 and that the outset I may say that the remand of a case is not a good thing either from the perspective of a judge or from the perspective of a lawyer or from the perspective of a litigant because it will give some sort of further lease of life or prolongation of life of an old litigation. So generally the remands are considered not as a favorable thing or rather it is viewed with some sort of dislike but then there can be situations in the real life where a remand becomes inevitable in a litigation. So let us see what are the provisions relating to remand of a case from an appellate court to the lower court or to the trial court in an inevitable situation. Before going into the subject, we all know that the order of remands are passed by the appellate courts. So that takes us to another question. What do you mean by an appeal? The word appeal has been held to mean the removal of a cause from an inferior court to a superior court for the purpose of testing the soundness of the decision of the inferior court. So it is appellate court is a touchstone where the soundness of the decision of the inferior court is tested and you complain to a higher court saying that look here the trial court committed a grave error either on facts or on law or both and therefore I am agreeing. So appeal is a request to the higher court to reexamine the whole thing. That is applicable in the case of first appeal. We are concerned with the first appeal for the time being because second appeal as you know section 100 CPC says a substantial question of law should be churned out. So those are all different aspects in which we may not go in the present day because this is not our subject. So appeal is a request by a person agreed by the decision of an inferior court requesting the appellate court to look to test the soundness of the decision taken by the trial court. Then the question what is the nature of appeal? Is it a constitutional right? Is it a natural right? Is it a common law right? I will repeatedly saying in many platforms that appeal is affirmatively held to be a statutory right. If any statute in CPC defines section 96 onwards regarding the appeals from decrees and judgments and in 104 appeals from appeal from orders permitted under order 43 and section 104. So appeal normally it is only a creation of a statute and there is no inherent right or a common law right or a constitutional right to file an appeal. But in the case of a suit as all of us know, suit is a right because the first action is a right. Whether an appeal should be filed or not is to be decided with reference to the statute under which you claim the first relief. So that is also settled law. I am just refreshing your memory regarding the right of appeals. I don't think I need not burden you with decisions on these points because Platino, Catorra, Litorra of decisions are available. I don't want to burden that and all of us know who can appeal. A person agreed with a party to a suit or proceeding and they agree with the decision can file an appeal if the statute permits. Or a person, though he is not a party to the proceedings, but is adversely affected by the decree or judgment, then he can also file an appeal. But only condition is that such person should obtain the leave of the court. In the case of a party, no leave is required. First appeal is a matter of almost a right. Because first of the appellate courts jurisdiction, all of us know is quarter minutes, coextensive and quarter minutes to that of the trial. It begins at the same point, ends at the same point, powers of appellate court and trial court starts from the same point and then ends at the same point. That is why we say that it is quarter minutes and coextensive and quarter minutes. So that is clear from section 107. Subject to correction one minute please. Yes. Section 107. Subsection 2 says, subject as aforesaid the appellate court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as maybe the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this court on the courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. So the powers of appellate court starts from the same point where the trial court's power starts and ends at the same point where the trial court's power ends. That is the spirit in the in sections 172. Then, then regarding powers of appellate court first part of section 107 says that subject to such conditions and limitations as maybe prescribed an appellate court shall have power a to determine a case finally. So that is it is not according to me. It is not a power. It is a duty of the appellate court to determine the case finally. If everything is every every what you call evidence is brought before the court and the records are perfect. Then it is the duty of the court. It is neither it is it is actually rather than a power. It is a duty of the court to decide the case finally then be remand the case. So this is an incident of appellate power. Remanding a case is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction and see to frame issues and refer them for trial. That is called loosely it is an issue remand but actually it is only a reference of one issue for the determination we shall see those aspects later in detail. Then D to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. So generally going by CPC section 171 there are four powers conferred by the court on an appellate court. One to determine the case finally two to remand the case three to frame issues and refer them for trial and four to take additional evidence or require such evidence to be taken by a court inferior to the appellate court. Generally the trial court. So these are the four powers available to an appellate court. These introductions I'm just making for the purpose of appreciating the scope of remand orders and the nature of remand orders and also in which cases remand should be allowed because as I told you in the opening sentence in the opening this this lecture I told you that remand is causing a further delay of disposal of the case causing difficulty to litigants causing difficulties in pendency because I believe the legal fraternity and the judicial officers will be benefited by considering these points which I want to tell you right now today. So that both sides will appreciate both judicial officers and the lawyers will be it should be benefited by my presentation that's my wish. That's why I view things from two perspectives from the judges perspective as well as from the lawyers perspective. Another philosophy in the CPC you will find in section 99. It says section 99 says no decree shall be reversed or substantially vary nor shall any case be remanded in appeal on account of any misjoinder or non-joinder parties or causes of action or any error defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. So such matters like non-joinder parties, non-joinder of cause of action or any error defect etc. shall not be a reason either to reverse a decree or to vary the decree substantially nor to remand a case to the lower court if these defects do not affect the decision of the case on merits or it does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Now when these two conditions are not satisfied, all these defects do not affect the jurisdiction of the court, these defects do not affect the merit of the finding of the court then the appellate court should affirm the decree that is the philosophy in section 99. So all these provisions would eloquently proclaim that to the extent possible the appellate court should perform its duty of deciding the case in accordance to law and facts in a given case and remand is only a very rare exception to the general rule. And in section 99 you will find one Supreme Court decision, it's a classic decision thereafter it is followed in many decisions a year 1954 Supreme Court 3400 which says that it's a salutary rule of law. It aims to prevent technicalities from overcoming the ends of justice that is what the Supreme Court in a year 54 Supreme Court 346 which is followed by Kerala High Court in a year 1979 Kerala page one full bench 79 Kerala full bench page one full bench. So these are the general aspects regarding the appellate power, no of course there are other aspects which may not be relevant for our purpose so I'm skipping those aspects. Then coming to the directly coming to the provisions dealing with the remand, we will find those provisions in order 41 rule 23 and rule 23 capital A. 23 capital A was added by 1976 amendment before that only 23 was there. 23 is a situation where the suit is disposed on a preliminary point and if the appellate court finds that the decision on the preliminary point is not correct and the suit should be fully tried. It shall not be disposed of on a preliminary point, if such a fine if the appellate court feels on the materials available in the records that the disposal of the suit on a preliminary point was bad, then it can set aside the decree passed by the court below and remand the case for a denover trial in respect of all the issues arising in the suit. For clarity I shall just take you to the relevant provision order 41 rule 23. It will be good that we read that provision it's a very small provision which says like this, where the court from whose degree and appeal is preferred has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the degree is reversed in appeal, the appellate court may if it thinks fit by order remand the case and may further direct what issue or issues shall be tried in the case who remanded it and shall send a copy of its judgment and order to the court from whose degree the appeal is preferred with directions to read meet the suit under its original number in the register of civil suits and proceed to determine the suit and the evidence if any recorded during the original trial shall subject to just all just exceptions the evidence during the trial after remand. So the provision is very clear if a suit is decided on a preliminary point by the tripod and if the appellate court on reconsideration of the material is placed before it in the form of appeal and the records. If it is an opinion that the disposal of the case on a preliminary point was not legally correct and not sustainable. Then it shall set aside the degree and direct the court below to try the issues which are which arise in the case and also to read meet the suit in the same original number as it was as it was numbered when it was pending before the trial court and to reconsider the case. So if you read order 41 rule 23 you will find there are two conditions required for applying the rule one where trial court has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the degree is reversed in appeal. So the disposal must be on a preliminary point not a full fledged trial and full fledged answering all the issues no only one issue for example I elaborate that for example there is a suit on a promissory file and the content of the defendant is that it is the suit is barred by limitation whereas the plaintiff would say that there is no bar of limitation because the liability has been acknowledged by a writing under section 18 of the limitation act and if the court finds without looking into the acknowledgement part if the trial court finds that yes the the suit is beyond three years from the date of promissory loop and the acknowledgement was not considered at all or it was wrongly considered and on that sole issue of limitation suppose the suit is disposed of the appeal filed by the plaintiff he can establish before the appellate court that the disposal was wrong because the court below committed a grave mistake in appreciating the case based on the law and fact. So in that even probably a remand may be required in such situations likewise suppose there is a question of jurisdiction suppose the suit is filed before a court. It's a suit and a special statute which provides a special forum for disposal of such cases for example run control legislations in our state run control courts are different from junior division that is months of school. They are different from run control court there is a separate authority suppose an eviction petition wrongly filed as a suit before a run control court then the suit is defective for lack of inherent lack of jurisdiction. If the agreeable person files an appeal and establishes before the court below that the particular area is not covered by the run control act or the run control act is not applicable to a particular class of building and the court below committed a grave mistake in finding that it has no jurisdiction. Then and if the appellate court finds that it had jurisdiction it failed to consider its jurisdiction then the degree can be set aside and it can be sent back for a decision on merits in respect of all issues arising in the suit. So these are the two situations where the try code has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the degree is reversed in appeal to where the appellate court in reversing or setting aside the degree considers it necessary in the interest of justice to remand the case. Because if if the degree is reversed then certainly if there is no trial in respect of other matters certainly in the interest of justice that should be a full fledged trial. So the inevitable it is inevitable to have a remand that is conditioning situation in order 41 rule 23. The appellate court also have a power to direct what issue or issues shall be tried by the trial code and it shall send a copy of the appellate judgment for guidance of the trial code. And in this context I may take directly to section 105 of the CPC. Which says that 105 subsection 2 not understanding anything contained in subsection 1 because subsection 1 is regarding the appellate jurisdiction that of course not for our purpose. Not understanding anything contained in subsection 1 where any party agreed by an order of remand from which an appeal lies does not appeal there from he shall thereafter be recruited from disputing its correctness. So when an order of remand is made either under order 41 rule 23 or 23. If the agreed party does not challenge the order of remand in an appeal if appeal is permitted then such party will be recruited from the bar from questioning the correctness of the remand order at a later point of time. Even in the appeal he can in the first appeal he can question the correctness of the remand order. So that is why I cognate provision I just wanted to bring that back to your notice maybe it is actually connected provision that's why 105 2 is brought to your notice. So this is order 41 rule 23. And then the question one question may arise what is a preliminary point. What do you mean by preliminary point preliminary point is a point where by a decision there on will render a final decision in the entire suit. So once you take a decision on a particular point if the if that causes the disposal of the entire suit then such point is called a preliminary point for example question of limitation. Once because you know section three of the limitation I says the question of limitation has to be decided as a preliminary point if that is decided. And it is found to be the suit is found to be bar by the law of limitation then that is the end of the suit such points are called preliminary point anybody having any interest may refer to a year 1922 Madras. It's a very old decision a year 1922 Madras 505 full bench. Which clearly says a point can be said to be a preliminary point if it is such that the decision there on in a particular way is sufficient to dispose of the whole suit without the necessity for a decision on other points in the case. So such points are called preliminary point that is what is dealt with in order 41 23. And another principle to be remembered in this context is that the order of remand power to exercise the remand is a discretionary power. It was with a court to find out whether a discretion should be exercised in favor of a party or not that's a discreet judicial discretion available to the appellate court and of course as guided as laid out by the Supreme Court. The discretion has to be exercised sparingly cautiously and with a circumspection and it should be judiciously exercised that is what judiciously exercise sorry. A year 1988 Supreme Court 2123 a year 1988 Supreme Court 2123 same principle stated in a year 76 Supreme Court eight double six. So, then, then probably I just illustrate some situations where a remand becomes inevitable. Finally, I told you at the outset that remands are not looked upon with favor by the higher courts because remand will only cause this extension of litigation rather prolongation of litigation and passing laws, pecuniary laws, high laws to litigants and docket explosion to the courts. So always remand orders are not appreciated but then there may be certain situations, compelling situations where remand will have to be resorted to such situations in the life example we can say when the appellate court directs amendment of the pedigts. Suppose there is a request before the appellate court for the first time to amend allow the parties, one of the parties, either the plaintiff or the defendant to amend the pedigts. And the amendment is established to be or proved to be for a valid reason, it could not be done in the trial. But if such reason if it is established that the amendment is highly essential for the proper adjudication of the case, then the appellate court has no other go but to allow the amendment. If such an amendment is allowed probably in so many situations a further adducing evidence may be required for which it may not be possible for the appellate court normally because of the tendency of matters and other things it may not be possible for an appellate court to record evidence and allow the parties to re-agitate. Moreover the party may also lose one form of appeal if that is done by the appellate court itself. So in that event the appellate court has no other option but to remand the case. That is one situation then probably then addition of parties suppose fresh parties are added, they were committed to be added then one contingent of non-jointer was raised in the first opportunity itself. And if they are added here for the first time showing valid reasons then also there is no trial in respect of those additional parties for which a trial becomes mandatory then a remand also becomes essential. Now there may be myriad of situations like this where a remand will be compelled to do. Otherwise remand is not a routine, it is not a rule, it is only an exception. Then another principle is that once an order of remand is made by the appellate court to the trial court or the inferior court whatever it is then because in the case of a high court remand it can be to the first appellate court or to the trial court. So the order of remand should direct specifically as to which court has to deal with the case depending on the fact situation and legal issue involved in each case. And the odd compliance it is the bounded duty of the inferior court to comply the directions in the remand order. It cannot question the remand order. It cannot disobey the directions in the remand order. In 1970 Supreme Court digested 353. The court to which a case is remand it cannot go behind the order of remand because it should be guided by the directions in the remand order it cannot go behind the order of remand. So these are the principles relating to remand generally and specific to rule 23. Now coming to 23 capital A order 41 rule 23 capital A that deals with the situation which is not covered by rule 23 because we have seen in rule 23 that it is a case where remand may be necessary in a given case when the case is disposed on a preliminary issue. But 23 A deals with other situations which was added by the 1976 amendment which says like this where the court from whose decree and appeal is preferred as disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal and the retry is considered necessary the appellate court shall have the same powers as it has under rule 23. So 23 A comes into play when the suit is disposed not on a preliminary point after a full fledged trial and the appellate court finds that the decree has to be reversed it is defective for some reason. And not merely reversal of a decree remand of a case is not automatic on reversal of a decree it can either reverse the decree and allow the suit or dismiss the suit. So every reversal need not resent in a remand but the appellate court should find that the decree cannot be sustained it should be reversed that is the first finding. Second finding is that there was no trial in respect of a particular issue or in respect of a particular condition. Though an issue has been cast in the case it was not properly tried and the retrial of that aspect is highly essential for the proper judicious adjudication of the case then it has to be remanded even if it is decided not on a preliminary point covering all the points. So that is 23 A so to attract 23 A there must be two situations rather three situations one the suit must have been disposed not on a preliminary point after considering every issues arising and the full fledged trial. Two the appellate court should disagree with the finding of the court below and it should arrive at a finding that a reversal of the decree is essential. Things do not stop there because every reversal may not resent in a remand and thirdly it must be established that there was no effective trial in respect of a particular aspect and the parties suffer prejudice on account of that a retrial of that is required then the court has no other option but to remand the case. So this is the split up aspects involved in the rule 23 involved in rule 23 A. Supreme Court says a retrial is to be ordered under rule 23 capital A only in cases where there has not been a proper trial by reason of something done by the court because it may be a mistake on the part of the court. So parties shall not suffer for that 1988 supplement SCC 171 1988 supplement SCC 171 an order of remand under rule 23 is generally called an open remand. Then there can be a restricted remand also possible but generally these are all open remand because the whole case is open before the court below. In the case of 23 suppose the preliminary issue was preliminary point was decided by the trial code in one way and the appellate code reverses the preliminary point and directs a retrial there cannot be a further decision on the preliminary point by the trial code. So in that sense it is a restricted remand because preliminary point when a suit is decided on a preliminary point and other issues are not answered. You can seek a remand under order 41 rule 23 and if the appellate code is convinced that the decision on the preliminary point is incorrect and it sets sex aside and directs the court below to try the other issues. Insofar as the finding in respect of the preliminary point is concerned that is final and the trial code cannot reconsider the preliminary point because it has been answered by the appellate code. Remaining points will have to be considered by the trial codes that is why it is in some decisions you will find an expression restricted remand. Now these are all judge made observations and CPC doesn't say so. Then another type of remand is rule 25 it is not actually remand it is a reference of an issue for trial. Though loosely some decisions use the expression remand actually if you read rule 25 you will understand that it is only a reference for answering an issue I shall just read that portion. Where the code from whose degree the appeal is preferred has omitted to frame or try any issue omitted to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact. Which appears to the appellate code essential to the right decision of the suit upon merits the appellate code may if necessary frame issues and refer the same for trial to the code from whose degree the appeal is preferred and in such case shall direct such code to take additional evidence required and such code shall proceed to try such issues and shall return the evidence to the appellate code together with the findings there on and the reasons therefore within such time as maybe if it's by the appellate code or within the extended type from type. So an issue suppose an issue has not been framed by the trial code which arises out of the bleeding going by order 14 CPC. If an issue which actually arises but not considered by the code below or if an issue has been properly framed but not answered properly not considered or answered and then no evidence there was no trial and respect of that issue. Then the appellate code on finding that such a matter is such a grave in regularity has been committed by the trial code. It can refer that issue either by framing itself or the already framed issue can be directed to be free trained by allowing the parties to reduce evidence on the issue in respect of that issue. And then here the appellate code can direct the trial code to enter a finding on that issue and both the evidence and the finding shall be retransmitted to the appellate code till then the appeal will be kept on the file of the appellate code. So there is no disposal of appeal. The difference between order 41 rule 23 and 23A on one hand and rule 25 on the other hand is that in the case of 23 and 23A remand the case is disposed by the appellate code whereas in the case of rule 25 this issue reference the appellate code retains the appeal and directs the code below either by framing an issue or asking them to allow the party to reduce evidence in respect of an issue already framed by the trial code. And after recording evidence on that issue, the code below will be obliged to enter a finding on that issue and then that will be retransmitted to the appellate code and the correctness of that finding will be considered along with the other matters in the appeal. So the appellate jurisdiction is retained. The case is retained in the appellate code in 25 remand but in other cases the case will be over in some areas appellate code is concerned. That is the essential difference between these remands in the CPC. Then in the case of a remand the appellate code is bound to fix a date for appearance of parties before the code below because otherwise they will have to issue a summons again that will be a cumbersome procedure waste of time, waste of money. So 26 A says where the appellate code remands a case under route 23 or 23 capital A or frames issues and refers them for trial under route 25. It shall fix a date for the appearance of the parties before the code from whose degree the appeal was preferred for the purpose of receiving the directions of that code as to further proceedings in the suit. So there should be a date fixed by the appellate code for appearance of parties before the first code after remand because otherwise it will be a unnecessary exercise of issuing summons by the trial code again. So these are the provisions relating to remand in the CPC and there are decisions by the Supreme Court deprecating the frivolous remands because before that I will take you to 24 also, rule 24, order 41, rule 24. Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the appellate code to pronounce judgment, the appellate code may after resettling the issues if necessary finally determine the suit not to standing that the judgment of the code from whose degree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the appellate code proceeds. Now if there are complete evidence available in the case records and maybe there may be some mistake in the framing of issues or rather approached by the trial code, but if appellate code is satisfied then there are complete evidence available in respect of the dispute between the parties. Then it is the duty of the appellate code to decide the case by itself without resorting to the exercise of power of remand that is the spirit of rule 24, which we have already seen in the substantive section there. So these are the statutory provisions regarding remand of this judgment or cases to the code below. Then, now there are decisions by the Supreme Court on this point which say that remand is the last resort as I told you earlier this is the reason is that it will give a unnecessary lease of life to the litigation already we are there is a complaint against judiciary both. Against the bar and against the bench is that we are contributors for delaying the end result of litigation so remand should be resorted to only when it is when it is a company reason for that. Then, then after remand, unless the order of remand is challenged that the code to which it is remanded is bound to obey the directions in the order of remand and decide the case fresh. Depending on the nature of remand whether it is an open remand or a restricted remand restricted remand in the sense some issues are already been concluded that cannot be re-agitated before the trial code. In the case of an open remand entire issues become open before the trial code and they can re-agitate on the parties can re-agitate the method before the trial code. Depending on the nature of order of remand the parties will have to reduce evidence and the court the trial code will have to take a decision. Again maybe subject to an appeal as provided in order 41 that is why I say that it will only prolong the life of a litigation. So, these are the aspects relating to remand of cases in appeal and which is an appendage of appellate power available to appellate court which shall be exercised very sparingly and it is a discretionary power. It should be exercised with sound judicial reasons and with these few words probably I can stop it here because I will go over to you because if any questions. Yes, thank you. So, since it was a short topic and self-explanatory we have not received any questions on the chat as well as on the YouTube. But since sometimes people go at the end how do you like to sum it up the remand? The order of remand if I am asked to sum up the summarizing. Now the remand is an inseparable or very valuable power of an appellate court which shall be exercised only very sparingly. It is not a matter of right to seek a remand or grant a remand. It is not an easy job for a judge to see that one case is disposed of in some way. No. He shall apply his judicial mind and think about the sad plight of a litigant before remanding a case that it will give rise to another 10 years or 5 years depending on the dependency in court. A lease of life for a litigation again. Then again another round of appeal. So these are the miseries we shall not add as lawyers and as judges we shall not add miseries to litigants. We are supposed to give a swage to them not to trouble them. So remand is a dispassionary relief. It shall be very sparingly exercised and two types of remand. One is open remand under order 41.23 capital A and restricted remand under order 41.23 when the suit is disposed on a preliminary point. And 23 A deals with a remand when it is disposed on not on a preliminary point means other issues also considered. And if the court finds that there was no trial in respect of any issue then remand is inevitable and there may be compelling situations or unavoidable situations like addition of parties, amendment of pleadings where a remand may be inevitable. In other cases it shall not be granted for mere asking that is my advice to all parties concerned. Yes sir. I think people will understand the knitting gritties of remand as nicely explained by you and thank you everyone. Stay safe and stay blessed. Now one question for chance has come. Is the trial court entitled to dispose of a suit only considering a preliminary point without answering the other issues? Yes it can because suppose the question of limitation is raised. As you know section 3 of the limitation act says whether the question of limitation is taken as a defence or not, the court is bound to consider whether the suit is barred by limitation. Suppose there are 10 issues and first issue is regarding the question of limitation. The trial court finds that the suit is hopelessly barred then it has no jurisdiction to decide other issues. You can't decide other issues in a suit which is found to be hopelessly barred by limitation. So there is no chance, there is no scope for answering other issues and the suit will be disposed of only on a preliminary point of limitation. So it can be disposed in a given case. Yes. Otherwise rejection of the plaint could also come into that. Rejection of the plaint is a different situation because you can file another suit in the same court. Provide a law of limitation permits. Order 7 rule 11 says that once rejection of the plaint rule 13 says that if law of limitation permits, you can file another suit without these defects and there is no bar. Or you can file an appeal on that rejection of the plaint. His question was, is the trial court entitled to dispose of a suit only considering a preliminary point? Let's assume he takes a plea of resjudicata, let's assume a plea. Resjudicata because the difference is that resjudicata is not a pure question of law. It is a waste question of fact and law. Because resjudicata has to be decided with reference to some previous litigation. Whether such a previous litigation exists or not is a question of fact. So once that is established as a question of fact, then whether it will apply as resjudicata is a question of law. No, I am saying if it has and it becomes self explicit to the effect. Sometimes even I have seen the plaint are exactly the same except for one or two different aspects. Once it is rejected, I am saying in that question he is asking. Or let's assume it is totally barred by jurisdiction only on those issues. No, barred by jurisdiction, I can give you an example. Resjudicata, you will refer to commentaries on section 11 by Mulla or any standard textbook. You will find that it is a rule of evidence actually. Resjudicata is a rule of evidence. And it is, you will find in evidence act also 40 to 40, 42, 43, section 41, 40, 41, 42, these are all principles of extension of resjudicata principle. Resjudicata confined to CPC section level. And because mind you one thing, resjudicata beyond section level is also available. In the case of repetitions, section level is not applicable, but still the principles of general principles of resjudicata applies. So resjudicata is a matter which has to be established regarding the existence of a previous litigation between the same parties. And the issue in the first litigation is substantially the same as the issue in the second litigation. So these are all aspects to be established in a trial. And you can simply assume that yes, this is the first case is also between the same parties and the same subject. The matter directly and substantially arising in the first case is also same as the matter in the second suit. That you can't assume, which requires proof. That is why I say it is a settled proposition in law that resjudicata is a mixed question of fact and law. It is not a pure question of law. Yeah, for a red petition there are a lot of petitions. One was on the, you would be remembering that Noab Hussain versus Union of India, 77 Supreme Court 288. It said that after dispensable of the red petition, the civil suit could not have been. That exactly is the difference. If you confined to section 11 CPC, because that is in a suit, how do you decide things in a suit based on evidence? In the case of repetitions, you decide things on a fit of it. That is the difference. We also have a full bench of Punjab Reh and I could be just saying versus UT 81 Supreme Court 81 Punjab Reh and page one PLJ, which says that the trappings of resjudicata sector will come into being in a red petition. Correct. And it also, there are also a lot of judgments which says that once there is an effect, it is silent. Then even in that aspect, you can look into the affairs. It is. Yes. No, I think the leaves question, I find a question from believe whether if it's a mixed question of fact and look, can it be desired as a preliminary point? No is my answer for that question. Yeah. Right. So thank you everyone. Stay safe. Stay blessed. And tomorrow we have sessions on the sanctity of the private mediation. So do join with us. Mr. Ajay Jawad and Mr. Everyone stay safe.