The Appellate Court may remand a case for fresh consideration if the evidence is found inadequate, ensuring effective adjudication of disputes.

JUDGMENT :

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. Appellant is the defendant in the suit. Appellant is challenging the remand order passed by the First Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the plaintiff.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. V. Philip Mathews and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, Sri. Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken.

3. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties. According to the plaintiff/University, the plaintiff obtained plaint A and B schedule properties, as per Exts.A2 and A3 documents. Plaint A schedule property is having an extent of 26 Cents and plaint B schedule property is having an extent of 29 Cents. Both properties together make a compact plot of 55 cents. On the western side of the properties, road is situated. The properties were purchased by the plaintiff at a time when the defendant was the Vice-Chancellor of the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant is attempting to trespass on the north-western portion of the plaint schedule properties.

4. The defendant claimed 9.73 Cents of land situated on the north-western side of the plaint schedule property on the strength of Exts. B4, B5 and B6 documents, which were executed during the pendency of the suit. The case of the defendant is that the said properties were under his protection even before the execution of Exts.B4, B5 and B6 documents as the vendors were his close friends. He never tried to trespass onto the plaint schedule property. The entire plaint schedule property does not touch Attukal- Killipalam Road. Most of the western boundary of the plaint schedule property is the property of the defendant.

5. Two Commissions were taken before the Trial Court. Ext.C1 Report is with respect to the commission taken at the time of filing the suit. Later, a Survey Commission was taken and the Commissioner filed Exts.C2 Report and C2(a) Plan.

6. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granting the permanent prohibitory injunction sought for with respect to the plaint schedule property identified by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext. C2(a) Plan as ‘ABCDEFRSHIJKLMN’ plot.

7. The plaintiff filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court, contending that the identification of the plaint schedule property as per Ext.C2(a) Plan is not correct. The plaintiff is having 55 Cents of land, whereas the Commissioner has identified only 52.122 Cents of land in Ext.C2(a) Plan. The plaintiff had produced certain documents along with I.A. No.2 of 2021 before the Trial Court, which would show that no land was acquired from the property belonging to the plaintiff situated in Survey No.1602, which covers the disputed area.

8. The First Appellate Court found that Exts.C2 Report and C2(a) Plan could not be relied on, since the same were prepared without reference to the documents relied on by the parties. The same was measured out, and the properties were identified on the basis of lie and nature. The First Appellate Court has found, from the evidence of PW2 Surveyor and PW3 Commissioner, that it is not possible to identify plaint A and B schedule properties separately from Ext.C2(a) Plan. The Trial Court ought not have decreed the suit relying on Exts.C2 Report and C2(a) Plan. It is also found that the documents produced along with I.A. No.2 of 2021 are material documents and the same should have been considered by the Trial Court. In view of the said findings, the Trial Court judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, allowing I.A. No.2/2021, giving liberty to the parties t