An order of remand should not be taken to be matter of course on the above grounds. The power of remand should be sparingly exercised. There should be always endeavour to dispose of the case by the appellate court itself, when the commissions and omissions made by the first court could be corrected by the appellate court.

.1. Third defendant in O.S.No.94 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Sankarankoil, is the appellant in the above civil miscellaneous appeal. The first respondent herein, plaintiff in the said suit filed the same for declaration and permanent injunction. Apart from examining himself as P.W.1, the plaintiff has examined 3 more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4. He has also marked Exs. A1 to A23. On the other hand, the third defendant was examined as D.W.1 and the second defendant was examined as D.W.2. They have also marked Exs.B1 to B6 in support of their defence. The Commissioner’s report and sketch were marked as Exs.C1 to C3. After framing necessary issues and in the light of the evidence on record, the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit with costs.

2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No.100 of 1986 before the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi. The lower appellate court after framing necessary points for consideration and after pointing out some defects in the plaintiff’s case, remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration.

3. The third defendant is questioning the order of remand made by the lower appellate court in this appeal.

.4. Mr.P. Peppin Fernando, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the reason given by the lower appellate court for remitting the matter to the trial court cannot be sustained. He also points out that there is no finding by the lower appellate court that the judgment and decree of the trial court are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. He further submits that it is not possible for the lower appellate court to remit the matter to the trial court, in order to set right the lacuna of the plain tiff’s case. For the above mentioned submissions, he also cited the following decisions:-

.(1). Visalakshmi Ammal v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal, 1989 (2) L.W 414.

(2). Devagi Plantations Ltd., Nagercoil represented iby its Managing Director D.Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector. Kanyakumari District. 1993 (2) L.W 59.

(3). Kannu Naicker v. Kalaimani, 1987 (100) L.W 922.

5. On the Other hand, Mr. M. Palani, learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of remand made by the lower appellate court is justified and prays for dismissal of the civil miscellaneous appeal. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

.6. After discussing the case of both parties, the lower appellate court in paragraph No.8 came to the following conclusion:- Admittedly, before the lower appellate court, no petition has been filed for amendment of the plaint. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that even before the trial court the plaint has already been amended. If such is the position, the lower appellate court itself can consider in the light of the available materials and dispose of the same.

7. With regard to order of remand, as held in H.M. Kari Goundar v. SP. Sgarmull, 81 L.W 46 (SN) before passing an order of remand, the appellate court must find that the decree of the trial court requires to be set aside. Likewise, the word “interest of justice” mentioned in Order 41, Rule 23 to 27, C.P.C. does not widen the power of the appellate court to remand the suit. In other words, the appellate court should first come to the conclusion that the decision of the trial court is liable to be reversed. A similar view has been expressed by Govardhan, J., in a recent decision reported in Soosairaj v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by District Collector, Pudukkottai, I.L.R. 1996 (2) Mad. 1339.

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the reason and the approach of the lower appellate court in remanding the case is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23 to 27, C.P.C. In a similar circumstance, this Court in a decision reported in Devagi Plantations Lt