R. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. :-The respondent has been served. She is neither appearing in person nor has engaged any counsel. The plaintiff is before this Court challenging the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The plaintiff went before the learned trial Judge in O.S. No. 166 of 1990 seeking a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from in any way interfering with her such possession. Voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence was let in before the trial Judge. The trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed in A.S. No. 286 of 1996. The learned appellate Judge, after going through the entire materials placed on record, found that a need had arisen for the appointment of an Advocate Commissoner so that the property forming the subject-matter of the suit could be identified and with that view in his mind, passed the order of remand which is now under challenge.

3. We went through the judgment of the lower appellate Court. As already noted, enough oral and documentary evidence had been let in on the side of the plaintiff as well as on the side of the defend