**The document contains excerpts from two separate Madras High Court judgments. In the first (related to Forest Act proceedings), the court held that failure to issue notice to the financier in confiscation proceedings is a curable defect; the appellate court erred in allowing the appeal entirely without remanding for fresh notice and enquiry to both purchaser and financier. The writ petition was allowed directing the Authorised Officer to issue notice to both and proceed afresh. In the second case (Palanisamy @ Uthayarpalayanthan v. Apparsamy), the trial court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction for want of declaration of title without considering the Advocate Commissioner's report. The appellate court remanded the matter for non-consideration of the report and need for plaint amendment. The High Court set aside the remand order reasoning that the appellate court itself has power under Order 41 CPC to consider factual material including the Commissioner's report and amendment application without remanding, as remand is not justified when necessary material is already on record.**
- In confiscation proceedings under the Forest Act, omission to issue notice to the financier is a procedural defect curable by remand and fresh notice rather than outright reversal of the order: [Relevant judgment excerpt, Para 9].
- An appellate court under Order 41 Rules 23 and 28 CPC should not remand a matter when the necessary material (including Advocate Commissioner's report) and amendment application are already before it; the appellate court has full jurisdiction to decide factual and legal issues itself: Palanisamy @ Uthayarpalayanthan v. Apparsamy, 2002 (4) CTC 232, Paras 8 & 9.
Palanisamy @ Uthayarpalayanthan Vs Apparsamy, Order date: 26 September 2002, Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (P.d) No.3 of 2002, Neutral Citation: 2002 (4) CTC 232, Name of court: High Court of Madras, Name of Judge: N.V. Balasubramanian and C. Nagappan, JJ.
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
