Jheky] lnL;& ;g fuxjkuh jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼ftls rRipkr~ la{ksi esa ^vf/kfu;e* dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 230 ds vUrxZr Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] fljksgh ds fu.kZ; fnukad 20-10-1999 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA ¼2½ la{ksi esa izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd orZeku vizkfFkZ;ka eq- iksdjh us ,d vkosnu i= vUrxZr vknsk 39 fu;e 2 lh-ih-lh- U;k;ky; lgk;d dysDVj] lkapkSj eq- Hkhueky ds le{k orZeku izkFkhZa okxk ds fo:) bu vk/kkjksa ij isk fd;k fd xzke vktksnj ds [ksr [kljk ua- 1018] 1024] 1027] 1085] 122] 515] 841 635 o 1254 dqy jdck 5-32 gSDVs;j Hkwfe ¼ftls rRipkr~ la{ksi esa ^^fookfnr vkjkth** dgk tkosxk½ ds lEcU/k esa vizkfFkZ;k us U;k;ky; lgk;d dysDVj] lkapksj ds ;gka okn izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftlesa fnukad 3-2-93 dks vUrfje vknsk tkjh gqvkA rRipkr~ fnukad 19-3-94 dks vknsk iq[rk fd;k tkdj orZeku izkFkhZa okxk dks bl vkk; ds lkFk ikcan fd;k x;k Fkk fd orZeku izkFkhZa] orZeku vizkfFkZ;ka dks mijksDr fookfnr vkjkth ds mi;ksx o miHkksx esa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi o ck/kk mRiUu ugha djsaA orZeku vizkfFkZ;k ,d csok vkSjr gSA orZeku izkFkhZ us fooknxzLr vkjkth esa dkr djus dh uh;r ls orZeku vizkfFkZ;ka dh Hkwfe ij dCtk dj fy;k rFkk mlds mi;ksx o miHkksx esa ck/kk Mkyh gSA vr% orZeku vizkfFkZ;k us izkFkZuk i= isk dj fuosnu fd;k fd fookfnr vkjkth dh [kM+h Qly iqfyl ds tfj, dqdZ djokbZ tkdj vizkfFkZ;k dks fnyokbZ tkosa rFkk orZeku izkFkhZa okxk dks vknsk 39 fu;e 2 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr~ flfoy tsy fHktokdj nf.Mr fd;k tk,A uksfVl izkIr gksus ij orZeku izkFkhZa us izkFkZuk i= dk tokc izLrqr dj izkFkZuk i= esa fy[ks rF;ksa ls bUdkj fd;k rFkk dgk fd orZeku izkFkhZ] orZeku vizkfFkZ;k dk xksn dk iq= gS rFkk mlds lkFk gh [ksr esa jgrk gS] vr% orZeku vizkfFkZ;ka dk izkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;k tk,A i{kdkjksa dks lquus ds ipkr~ lgk;d dysDVj] lkapksj ¼tkykSj½ us vius vknsk fnukad 26-2-96 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ^^fu.kZ; fnukad 19-3-94 esa okfn;k dh Hkwfe dkSulh gS] dk Li"V mYys[k ugha gSA mijksDr foospu ls Li"V gS fd izkfFkZ;k ;g izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgh gS fd vizkFkhZ us mldh Hkwfe ds mi;ksx dk miHkksx esa ck/kk mRiUu dh ftlls fd lh-ih-lh- ds vknsk 39 fu;e 2 o 2A dk mYya?ku gksrk gSA vr% izkfFkZ;k dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA** mDr vknsk ls O;fFkr gksdj orZeku vizkfFkZ;ksa us Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] fljksgh ds le{k vihy la- 33@96 izLrqr dh] ftUgksaus vius fu.kZ; fnukad 5-3-97 }kjk orZeku vizkfFkZ;ksa dh vihy Lohdkj dj izdj.k lgk;d dysDVj] lkapksj dks bl funsZk ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k fd%& ^^vius iwoZorhZ fu.kZ; dh ikyuk djkus ds fy, izkfFkZ;k ds izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj fd;k tkos vkSj fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkosaA** izdj.k izkIr gksus ij lgk;d dysDVj] lkapksj us izdj.k iqu% ewy uEcj ij ntZ dj i{kdkjksa dks lquus ds ipkr~ vius vknsk fnukad 20-4-99 }kjk orZeku vizkfFkZ;k dk izkFkZuk i= vkafkd :i ls Lohdkj dj fuEu vknsk ikfjr fd;k%& ^^ekuuh; jktLo vihy izf/kdkjh }kjk lgk;d dysDVj ds fu.kZ; dks fujLr dj izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj djus ds funsZk gSA vizkFkhZ us ekuuh; jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) dksbZ vihy ugha dh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa U;k;ky; gktk dks vihyk.V U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; esa vafdr funsZkksa dh ikyuk dk gh fodYi ks"k jgrk gSA izkfFkZ;k }kjk mYysf[kr Qly vc ekSds ij ugha gS] u gh [kqnZcqnZ dh xbZ Qly dk Valuation fn;k x;k gSA izkfFkZ;k dk izkFkZuk i= vkafkd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA vizkFkhZ okxk dks ,d ekg dk flfoy dkjkokl fn;k tkrk gSA bl vkk; dh rgjhj i`Fkd ls tkjh gksA mi;ZqDr vknsk izLrqr vknsk dh vihy E;kn lekfIr ds ipkr~ ykxw gksA** mDr vknsk ls O;fFkr gksdj orZeku izkFkhZ us Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh o insu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] fljksgh ds le{k vihy la- 11@99 izLrqr dh] ftls mUgksaus vius fu.kZ; fnukad 20-10-99 }kjk vihy vLohdkj dj nhA mDr fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr gksdj orZeku izkFkhZ us izuxr fuxjkuh jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj esa izLrqr dh gSA ¼3½ mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dks lquk x;k rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=kofy;ksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ¼4½ izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk eq[; rdZ gS fd Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] fljksgh us vihy la- 33@96 esa orZeku vizkfFkZ;k dh vihy muds vknsk fnukad 5-3-97 }kjk Lohdkj dh] tks xyr ,oa xSj dkuwuh :i ls Lohdkj dh xbZ Fkh] D;ksafd vihyh; U;k;ky; vius v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks ,d foks"k vknsk ikfjr djus ds fy, ck/; ugha dj ldrh] vkSj vxj ,slk fd;k tkrk gS rks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks vius Lofoosd ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fn;k tkuk] ekuk gh ugha tk,xkA orZeku izkFkhZ us U;k;ky; ds vknsk dh dksbZ voekuuk ugha dh gSaaA v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; Lo;a vihy dk fuLrkj.k dj ldrh FkhA orZeku vizkfFkZ;k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd orZeku izkFkhZa us vihy la- 33@96 esa ikfjr vknsk fnukad 5-3-97 dks pqukSfr ugha nh] bl dkj.k izuxr fuxjkuh esa fu.kZ; fnukad 5-3-97 dks vc pqukSfr ugha nh tk ldrhA ¼5½ eSaus fu.kZ; fnukad 5-3-97 dk voyksdu fd;k ftlesa Hkw izca/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] fljksgh us vknsk ikfjr djrs le; Li"V funsZk fn;k gS fd vius iwoZorhZ fu.kZ; dh ikyuk djkus ds fy, izkfFkZ;k ds izkFkZuk i= dk Lohdkj fd;k tkosa vkSj fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh djkbZ tkosA mijksDr funsZk ds vuqlkj lgk;d dysDVj] lkapksj ds ikl orZeku vizkfFkZ;k ds izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj djus ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ fodYi ugha FkkA esjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; us izdj.k dks izfriszf"kr djrs le; tks funsZk fn;s Fks] os fujLr ;ksX; gSA tgka rd orZeku vizkfFkZ;k dk ;g rdZ fd fu.kZ; fnukad 5-3-97 dks izuxr fuxjkuh esa pqukSfr ugha nh tk ldrh] ls eSa lger ugha gwWA vknsk fnukad 5-3-97 ds fo:) vihy jktLo e.My esa iks"k.kh; ugha FkhA bl dkj.k izdj.k izfrizs"k.k dk vknsk vUrohZa; gksus ls i{kdkjksa ds e/; izdj.k ds laca/k esa dk;Zokfg;ksa dh lekfIr ugha gqbZ ,oa ihfM+r O;fDr ds fy, mipkj miyC/k gS fd og izfrizs"k.k ds fu.kZ; ij vafre vknsk ds ipkr~ izfrizs"k.k ds vknsk dks pqukSfr ns ldrk gSaA bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us eaxyizlkn rkeksyh cuke ujosnoj feJk] ,-vkbZ-vkj- 2005 ,l-lh- 1964 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& "14. When we put to the learned counsel as to how he could in the present appeal filed in the year 1999 challenge the order or remand made by the judgment of the High Court on January 18, 1966 in second Appeal No. 3033/58, the learned counsel drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Kshitish Chandra Bose vs. Commissioner of Ranchi (1981) 2 SCR 764 , as authority for the proposition that an order of remand by the High Court being an interlocutory judgment, which did not terminate the proceedings, it is open to the aggrieved party to challenge in after the final judgment. This court in Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. vs. Smt Deorajin Devi & Anr. (1960) 3 SCR 590 , under similar circumstances, took the view that an order of remand was an interlocutory judgment which did not terminate the proceedings and hence could be challenged it an appeal from the final order. This view was again reiterated in K.C. Bose (Supra), wherein it is observed (p. 767): "Mr. Sinra appearing for the respondent was unable to cite any authority of this Court taking a contrary view or overriding the decisions referred to above. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that it is open to the appellant to assail even the first judgment of the High Court and if we hold that this judgment was legally erroneous then all the subsequent proceedings, namely, the order of remand, the order passed after remand, the appeal and the second judgment given by the High Court in appeal against the order or remand would become nonest." 15. Having considered the questions urged by the learned counsel, which appear to be backed by the two decisions of this Court, in the background of the facts of the case before us, we are satisfied that the appellants are entitled to succeed on both counts. 16. The Trial Court and the first appellate court had held that the suit for redemption brought by the plaintiff was premature and rightly dismissed it. It is High Court by its judgment dated 18-1-1966 in Second Appeal No. 3033/58, which took an erroneous view that because the plaintiff advocate had stated that he would not seekl delivery of possession before stipulated time (26.1.1968), the suit could be continued. It is High Court by its judgment dated 18-1-1966 in Second Appeal No. 3033/58, which took an erroneous view that because the plaintiff advocate had stated that he would not seekl delivery of possession before stipulated time (26.1.1968), the suit could be continued. It was on this wrong understanding of the legal position that the remand order dated January 18, 1966 came to be made by the High Court pursuant to which the appeal and further proceedings continued, if this remand order was bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent there to would be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. That the appellants are entitled to urge this point even at this point of time, is supported by the authority of this Court in Gangadhar (supra). ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mijksDr fu.kZ; ds ifjizs{; esa D;kasfd vknsk fnukad 5-3-97 }kjk Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] fljksgh us izdj.k izfrizsf"kr fd;k FkkA bl dkj.k mldh oS/krk dks izuxr fuxjkuh esa ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼6½ vknsk fnukad 5-3-97 v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; us {ks=kf/kdkj ls ijs tkdj ikfjr fd;k gSA bl vknsk esa ;g funsZk fn;s x;s fd ^^ekuuh; jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh }kjk lgk;d dysDVj ds fu.kZ; dks fujLr dj izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj djus ds funsZk gSA** mijksDr funsZk lgk;d dysDVj dks vU; vknsk ikfjr djus ds fy, fu"ks/k djrh gS] vr% izfrizs"k.k vknsk vfof/kekU; gSA ekuuh; enzkl mPp U;k;ky; us M/s. Wander Ltd., Bombay and etc. vs. M/s. Antex India Pvt. Ltd. Banglore and Others, ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1991 enzkl 109 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& "Held that, the order of remand was invalid Obviously, the single judge wanted the matter to be decided afresh by the Drug Controller after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to both the companies to state their respective case. However while doing so, an embargo was placed by the single Judge on thef Drug Controller that he should pass orders, "by exercising powers for cancelltion "in the light of the observations contained above." This was not a proper course to adopt. However while doing so, an embargo was placed by the single Judge on thef Drug Controller that he should pass orders, "by exercising powers for cancelltion "in the light of the observations contained above." This was not a proper course to adopt. Undoubtedly, the authrity exercising the powers to cancel& a licence under the Act exercises quasi judicial functions and once it is found that the order which was sought to be quashed through the writ petition, was cryptic and had been passed without affording any opportunity to respondents companies, the matter should have been left to the Drug Controller to decide afresh by exercising his quasi judicial powers and giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the concerned parties to represent their case. By insisting upon the quasi-judicial authority to pass orders by exercising powers under S.17 B(a) and in the light of the observations made by the single judge, the further observation that he should do so "after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity" to the parties became almost meaningless." bl dkj.k rdZlaxr :i ls izfrizs"k.k dk vknsk o mlds ipkr~ dh xbZ leLr dk;Zokfg;ka vkjEHk ls gh kwU; gSA ¼7½ QyLo:i i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k us vU; fcUnqvksa ij Hkh foLr`r :i ls cgl dh] ftudk mYys[k djuk eSa mfpr ugha le>rk D;kasfd esjh erkfHkO;fDr] i{kdkjksa ds fgrksa ij izfrdwy izHkko Mky ldrh gSA ¼8½ izuxr fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] fljksgh }kjk izuxr fuxjkuh esa o vihy la- 33@96 esa ikfjr vknsk fnukad 5-3-97 o lgk;d dysDVj] lkapkSj }kjk ikfjr vknsk fnukad 20-4-99 fujLr fd;k tkr gSA izdj.k iqu% lgk;d dysDVj] lkapkSj ¼tkYkkSj½ dks bl funsZk ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os izdj.k la- 9@95 dks iqu% vius ewy uacj ij ntZ dj vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij nksuksa i{kdkjksa dks lqudj xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fof/k vuqlkj vknsk ikfjr djsaA ¼9½ i{kdkjksa dks funsZk fn, tkrs gSa fd os lgk;d dysDVj lkapkSj ¼tkykSj½ ds U;k;ky; esa fnukadg 2-11-2006 dks mifLFkr gksaA ¼10½ fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA