Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that remand under Order 41 Rule 23A CPC requires evidence insufficiency or procedural lapse, not mere improper appreciation of evidence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that appellate authorities must consider condonation of delay applications before rejecting appeals, reinforcing procedural fairness under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that appellate courts cannot decide inter se liability between insurer, driver and owner when a prior remand order has specifically reserved it for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Bombay High Court holds that failure to frame a specific issue on limitation does not justify wholesale remand; appellate courts must use Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 CPC to decide on existing evidence.