The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O.S. No. 307/2009 in the Court of Civil Judge, Pandavapura to pass decree of permanent injunction and restrain the defendant from interfering into his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Written statement was filed and the suit contested by the defendant. Issues having been raised and during trial the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and marked Exs. P1 to P36. The defendant got examined himself as DW1 and examined two witnesses as DWs 2 and 3 and marked Ex.D1. By a Judgment dated 20.01.2014, the suit was decreed.

2. The defendant preferred R.A. No.3/2014 in the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Pandavapura. I.A.2 was filed for permission to adduce additional evidence in terms of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. I.A.2 was taken up for consideration along with the appeal. By reason of the impugned Judgment dated 14.03.2016, First Appellate Court allowed I.A.No.2 and also the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the case to Trial Court to provide opportunity to both parties to produce additional evidence. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed this appeal.

3. Sri R. Pramod, learned advocate for the appellant contended that merely on account of allowing of I.A.No.2 and permission granted to adduce additional evidence, the entire case could not have been remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal after recording further evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has not kept in view the provisions under Order XLI Rule 28 of CPC and hence interference is warranted.

4. Sri Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, learned advocate for the respondent on the other hand contended that the Court below having found that the documents sought to be produced along with I.A.No.2 are required to be admitted in evidence and as the defendant should be given opportunity to mark the same, remanding of the case to the Trial Court is justified. Learned counsel submitted that no prejudice having been caused to the appellant, no case exists for interference.

5. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is, whether the First Appellate Court has committed material error and illegality in passing the impugned Judgment?

6. Four issues having been raised in the suit, both parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. It is with reference to the said evidence the suit was decreed and the defendant was restrained from interfering into the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

7. The defendant preferred the first appeal assailing the decree passed by the Trial Court and filed I.A.No.2 and sought permission to adduce additional evidence in terms of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. I.A.No.2 was opposed by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has raised the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant has made out a sufficient ground for production of the additional evidence and documents as pleaded in the I.A.No.2 at the appellate stage?

2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated : 20.01.2014 passed by the trial court are erroneous, perverse, capricious and arbitrary?

3. Whether the Judgment of the Trial Court calls for interference by this Court?

4. What order or decree?

8. Finding that the documents proposed to be produced along with I.A.No.2 are the certified copies obtained from a Court and being of the view that to decide the appeal additional evidence is very much necessary, I.A.No.2 was allowed. Despite finding that the Appellate Court can take such evidence, First Appellate Court has arbitrarily concluded that it is necessary to remand the case to the Trial Court by setting aside the Judgment and Decree, impugned in the appeal. By being of the view that to avoid hardship to the plaintiff, cost can be imposed and a time bound direction issued, cost of Rs.500/- was ordered to be paid to the plaintiff and the Trial Court was directed to decide