1. Since both the miscellaneous appeals involve common question, appellant is also same in both of the appeals, facts are interconnected and of common interest, both the miscellaneous appeals heard together on motion.

2. As per the case of the appellant, the first appellate court while deciding Civil Appeal No.109A/15 and 106A/15 against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the VIIIth Civil Judge Class II in Civil Suit No.87A/2010, Civil Suit 100A/2010 judgment and decree dated 07-02-2012 whereby the trial Court dismissed the Civil Suit No.87A/10 filed by present respondents 1 to 9 and partly allowed Civil Suit No.100A/10 filed by the present respondents 1 and 2 and declared that present respondents 1 and 2 in MA No.67/2016 are the owner of lands as shown in para 29 Sub-para 1 of the impugned judgment. The appellate court while hearing the above both civil appeals allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 and also under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the Code’) and remanded both the civil suits for hearing without any appreciation on its merit directed that after necessary impleadment as in interim application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code and thereafter after taking the document on record under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code, thereafter after affording the parties opportunity for adducing evidence for the said additional pleadings and document and after hearing, the matter be disposed of afresh on its merit. Against the said order the appellant filed these two miscellaneous appeals under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code against the order passed by the appellate court in both civil appeals for remanding the matter under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23A of the Code.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant in both the miscellaneous appeals that the plaintiff/respondents in both the civil suits had filed the said civil suits claiming easementary right and also for permanent injunction against the proceedings of dispossession of the said plaintiffs. Undisputedly, land belongs to the appellant, they were claiming easementory right for public road as they were using the same for 10 to 12 years, they failed to prove this fact that for last 10 to 12 years they are using the said lands. On 25-04-2008, the land of the appellant was demarcated as the concerned respondents are the owner of the lands nearby hence they were present at the time of demarcation. They challenged the said report of demarcation before Collector, the same was pending at the time of hearing of civil suit. On 07-02-2012, the concerned trial Court accordingly dismissed the Civil Suit No.87A/10 and partly allowed the Civil Suit No.100A/10. Against the said judgment, the concerned respondents preferred civil appeal as aforementioned. During pendency of said appeals, the revision which they were preferred before the Additional Collector against the order of demarcation over the land of present appellant was allowed on 13-04-2012. Thereafter, the respective respondents/appellants filed application under Order 6 Rule 17, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code for amendment in the pleadings and for taking document on record. As they were not prayed for remanding of said civil appeals, the onus is with them to prove their case regarding easementary right, no document is filed that the road in question was public road. With this, no ground for remanding is made out, the said order is bad in law, hence, both the appeals may be admitted for consideration and accordingly disposed of.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the matter of Syeda Rahimunnisa V. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. & another, etc., AIR 2016 SC 4653 and relied upon paras 34 and 35 of the said judgment which are as under:-

"34. The High Court, in our view, further failed to see that if the first appellate court could decide the appeal on merits without there being any objection raised for remanding of the case to the trial court, we are unable to