IMPORTANT POINT
An order of remand should not be passed if evidence has already been adduced and a decision can be rendered on its appreciation. The appellate court can direct the trial court to record evidence and findings on a particular aspect/issue.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellants herein are the respondents/ plaintiffs before both the Court below filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.

2. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 11/10/2022 in A.S.No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District (in short 'the first appellate court') against the Judgment and Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.278 of 2011 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, (in short "the trial court') remanding the suit for fresh disposal.

3. Initially the plaintiffs filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction against the respondent/ defendant in respect of plaint schedule property and during the trial sole plaintiff died and on her death, the 2nd plaintiff added as her legal representative. The trial court holding that the 2nd plaintiff proved her title to the suit property, besides proving her possession over the suit schedule property and that the suit was decreed as prayed for on 6/11/2017. Assailing the said order, the respondent/ defendant has preferred A.S.No.11 of 2018 before the first appellate court.

4. The first appellate court has framed the following point for determination would be is: Whether the respondents are entitled for permanent injunction restraining the appellant/ defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as decreed by the lower court?

5. The first appellate court arrived at just conclusion and holding that in view of the fact that the appellant i.e respondent herein is seeking frame of additional issue at the stage of appeal, the fact remains it needs giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence is essential in the appeal. The respondent herein may raise about receiving additional documents and additional issues before the trial court. Therefore the appeal was partly allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, by remanding the suit for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both parties to lead further evidence, if any and then decide the merits of the suit without influencing the observations in the appeal and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.

6. Heard Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the first appellate court has remanded the matter for fresh disposal holding that the respondent had filed additional documents with regard to death certificates of Syed Rasool Saheb and Zahera Beebe, who had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st plaintiff and Ex.A10 the Rectification Deed was executed through agent is invalid and without marking those death certificates and without cross examination on those documents and the matter is remanded having held that though the stand of the appellant in the trial court is not that in view of death of Zahera Beebe and Syed Rasool Saheb the Ex.A10 is rectification deed is invalid. Therefore the first appellate court ought not to have remanded the matter.

8. It is further contended that the lower appellate court ought to have seen that Ex.A10 dtd. 28/12/2016 executed during pendency of the suit and the plaint has been amended and the same has been marked as under Ex.A10 at any point of time the respondent/ appellant did not take any objection either for amendment of the plaint or for marking of rectification deed and as such it is not open for the respondent/ defendant to dispute Ex.A10 document and as such the first appellate court erred in remanding the matter though Ex.A10 rectification deed is very much available on record to adjudicate the issue with regard to validity of Ex.A10 as alleged by respondent/ defendant. Therefore there is no need or necessity to remanding the matter. As such, remanding the sui