SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned advocates representing the contesting parties and the learned GA on merits over the last several dates of hearing as is evident from the order sheet. The only reason why final orders were not passed was because the respondents learned advocate had asked for a little time to consider whether there are any other submissions which he desire to urge. Today, we have once again done a total review of the record and the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned GA submitted that where the learned Single Judge has for a valid reason remanded the case and particularly in a situation such as the present one where the order of the Tribunal proceeds really on the basis of something that transpired before the Civil Court and where the Tribunal has not addressed itself to the question posed by the High Court in the order dated 4. 7. 1984 in W. P. 28337/81 viz. , whether the R3 could have become the tenant of the land after 5. 7. 1971, that the order of remand is fully and perfectly justified. His submission is that neither of the parties should be permitted to agitate anything on points of fact because this is within the enquiry contemplated before the Tribunal and that the order of remand should be upheld. On a careful consideration of the case on merits, we do find that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in having remanded the case because the claim if any of the respondent has to be decided on merits and particularly in view of what has been indicated by us above. We accordingly confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we direct the Tribunal to issue fresh notice to the parties, hear them after permitting them to lead whatever evidence they desire and to re-decide the case on merits. Parties to maintain status quo in the meanwhile and if any interim orders necessary Tribunal to consider the same. The Tribunal shall also take the precaution of ensuring that if any of the parties have passed away that their LRs have notice of the proceedings. In view of the fact that this is a very old case Tribunal to dispose off the same as expeditiously as possible but in any event within an outer limit of 6 months from today. In view of the fact that this is a very old case Tribunal to dispose off the same as expeditiously as possible but in any event within an outer limit of 6 months from today. Records to be returned to the Tribunal forthwith. The appeal succeeds to this extent and stands disposed off. No order as to costs. MFSJ and KRMJ:8-10-2002 order ON FOR BEING SPOKEN TO after the above order was passed on 3-10 -2002, even though as indicated by us in the order sheet of that date, the appeal having been heard by us on close to half-a-dozen occasions and our only having confirmed the learned Single Judges order that the Tribunal should hold a fresh enquiry and re decide the case, the appellants learned Advocate requested us to rehear the matter once again as there were certain aspects which he still wanted to urge and the technical fault committed by us was that, when we dictated the order, it is true that the appellants learned Advocate was not present here. For equally technical reasons we agreed to ascertain what the points were but, we then realised once again that the Judges would be in the wrong box for hearing one learned Advocate in the absence of the other because, by then the respondents, learned Advocate was not before us and therefore we relisted the appeal for hearing today. Once again, we have heard the learned Advocates thread bare. It is a little unfortunate that these things are happening but, the casualty is really the fact that there appears to be absolutely no finality with regard to the judicial orders that are passed. We genuinely feel that the lawyers must act with a better sense of responsibility. ( 2 ) THE submission that was canvassed before us was that while remanding the case to the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Bharirathiammas case reported in 1979 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 307. His submission is that the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in AIR 1980 Kar. His submission is that the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in AIR 1980 Kar. 107 has very clearly laid down the proposition that an issue as to tenancy of the defendant referred to the Tribunal and the decision thereof having become final before 1-3-1974, that the issue need not be reopened and that the suit should be disposed of on the basis of the legal position as obtains pursuant to that order. The circumstances under which the aforesaid proposition was laid down were entirely different to the facts of the present case because the Full Bench was concerned with whether the issue of tenancy required to be referred to the Tribunal once again in the face of it having been earlier decided and the Full Bench very rightly held that the issue having become final, there was neither need nor propriety for doing this. In the present case, there is a direct challenge to the order which the appellant is relying on, on the ground that it is vitiated in law on the ground of mis representation and coercion. This is something that virtually goes to the root of the matter because, if there is a challenge on the grounds of coercion, fraud etc. , and if that challenge were to be upheld by the court, the order itself would be rendered null and void or non est. Mr. Adi, learned Counsel who represents the appellant did bring it to our notice that the III Additional Munsiff, Hubli had passed the order as early as on 5-7-1972 wherein he had held that the present respondent is not a tenant and Mr. Adi submits that this was a decision of a competent judicial forum because that was the authority vested with the power of examining such issues and deciding them. He submits that while the respondent-1 s father did file Form No. 7 and claim tenancy on the ground that he is in occupation and cultivation and that his name is reflected in the revenue records, the important thing is that he did not raise any challenge to the validity of the order dated 5 7-1971 which had become final. He also relies on the fact that pursuant to this order, Mutation Entry No. 463 also stands. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, Mr. He also relies on the fact that pursuant to this order, Mutation Entry No. 463 also stands. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Shetty, learned Counsel who represents the respondents submitted that there is something very glaring in the present case viz. , the fact that admittedly when the parties approached the III Additional Munsiff, Hubli with the dispute in question, that there was no doubt about the fact that the appellants father was in fact the tenant, that the proceedings continued for as long as five years and suddenly, for no valid or ostensible reason, the tenant is supposed to have made a declaration before that authority that he is no longer the tenant. While Mr. Adi submitted that there is nothing unusual about a party relinquishing the tenancy, his learned Counterpart points out that there is no ostensible reason or ground why after litigating for five full years, the tenant would voluntarily give up his tenancy. Next, what Mr. Shetty seeks to emphasise is the fact that regardless of the order passed by the learned Munsiff, the petitioners father admittedly continues in occupation and cultivation and thereafter the petitioner comes into the picture and it is his submission that this circumstance alone indicates that the so called admission before the learned Munsiff and the so called relinquishment of tenancy are both absolutely sham. We have only reproduced the contentions that were pleaded before us because this is a rigorously contested litigation wherein the appellants learned Advocate points out to us that on the other hand, it is very significant that at no time, did the petitioners father or the petitioner allege any unfair tactics such as coercion or mis representation, only as late as in the year 1988, that this plea was taken up for the first time and the submission is that such a belated plea itself is hollow and untenable on the face of it and can never ever be upheld. In sum and substance, what Mr. Adi submitted was that if this is the issue which the Tribunal is required to re-examine and if it can reasonably be held that no judicial forum would accept or uphold such a belated plea that has come up for the first time, that a remand is totally unwarranted. In sum and substance, what Mr. Adi submitted was that if this is the issue which the Tribunal is required to re-examine and if it can reasonably be held that no judicial forum would accept or uphold such a belated plea that has come up for the first time, that a remand is totally unwarranted. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Advocate submitted that normally, in cases such as the present one where the litigation is old and there have already been more than one remand, that the High Court, should not again send the proceedings back to the Tribunal but, he submitted, with a sense of responsibility that it needs to be pointed out that only if the facts of the case are so gross and they virtually stare one in the face and it would require a proper judicial reexamination and the Tribunal being the only forum competent and qualified to assess the evidence and that only in such cases would a remand be permissible. ( 5 ) WE do uphold the view that remands in general are contra indicated and particularly in the field of land reforms where cases have been remanded three or four times and it is very necessary to prune this litigation and bring a sense of finality to the disputes. However, in selective cases, there is no option except to remand the matter because, the rights of the parties on both sides are issues of some seriousness and the added aspect is that where the proceedings have not been conducted too well before the Tribunal, that it is far better to give the parties an opportunity of producing everything that they desire to rely on and a final decision to be taken on merits once and for all. ( 6 ) APART from what we have pointed out in the original order, in our considered view, the angles that have now surfaced, are far from either frivolous or irrelevant. They involve a serious assessment of the record and it may be necessary to observe that both the parties should not be precluded from substantiating their respective cases if they so desire. They involve a serious assessment of the record and it may be necessary to observe that both the parties should not be precluded from substantiating their respective cases if they so desire. It is for this reason that we have refrained from making any observations with regard to the contentions raised before us except to the extent of holding that the validity of the order dated 5-7-1971 which is right at the center of the entire dispute and which has been attacked by the respondents will have to be examined and a finding recorded thereon. It is for this reason that inspite of everything that has now been argued before us we still uphold the original view that the remand in this case was justified.