IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that remanding a case without valid reasons violates procedural rules, especially when sufficient evidence is available for a decision.

JUDGMENT :

B. SYAMSUNDER, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam in AS No. 71 of 2000, dated 06.11.2006, which preferred by the respondents herein against the Judgment and Decree passed in OS No. 227 of 1995, dated 20.06.2000. The learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam remanded OS No. 227 of 1995 to the trial Court for fresh disposal after considering the documents, filed by the respondents/defendants.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in OS No. 227 of 1995 challenging the remand Order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam.

3. The appellants and the respondents hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for eviction of the defendant Nos.1 to 6 from plaint ‘A’ schedule property, and for recovery of arrears of rent with interest and also claimed future damages for use and occupation of plaint ‘A’ schedule property by the defendants from the date of suit, till the delivery of possession of the properties.

5. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court decreed the suit, directing the defendants to evict from the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs, within two months from the date of decree, and they were also directed to pay arrears of rent and damages with interest till delivery of possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property.

6. Against the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed AS No. 71 of 2000 on the file of Principal District Court, Srikakulam, wherein the defendants appears to have been filed IA No. 1678 of 2001 under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC to receive additional evidence, which was said to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Against which, the defendants appears to have been filed CRP No. 5408 of 2004, wherein this Court said to be directed the First Appellate Court to receive additional evidence, subject to proof and relevancy. Then, the defendants who are the appellants before the First Appellate Court filed IA No. 1813 of 2006 under Order 18, Rule 17 of CPC to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination with reference to the contents of said documents. The First Appellate Court passed following Order at Para Nos. 6 and 7, which reads as under:

“6. Aggrieved by the said dismissal Order in IA No. 1678/2001 the appellants approached the Honourable High Court and the Honourable High Court after considering the matter, set aside the dismissal Order of this Court and directed that the aforesaid documents be received as additional evidence in the appeal, subject to proof and relevancy in its Order dated 08.03.2006 in CRP No. 5408/2004. The appellants in view of the said Orders of the Honourable High Court filed petition in IA No. 1813/2006 under Order 18 Rule 17 praying to recall PW-1 for cross-examination with reference to the contents of the said documents.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case as already stated above, this Court is of the view that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh disposal after duly considering the above documents viz. (1) Photostat copy of the registered Will dated 05.05.1994 executed by Baratam Lakshminarayana alias Thoudu; (2) Registered extract of the Will dated 05.05.1994 executed by Baratam Lakshminarayana alias Thoudu and (3) Certified copy of the final decree in IA No. 378/1978 in OS No. 20/1974 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam dated 26.04.1994.

Since the matter pertains to the year 1995, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam is directed to take steps to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.”

7. Against the said Orders passed by the First Appellate Court remanding OS No. 227 of 1