Appellate Courts remanding matter totally against principles of law.

The respondent in A.S.No.45 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant therein is the respondent in the present appeal.

2. The respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.109 of 1995 originally on the file of the District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai for declaration of title and for possession of the suit property. Later, due to bifurcation of the District, the suit was transferred to the file of the District Munsif, Nannilam and renumbered as O.S.No.117 of 1999. The appellant herein being the defendant in the said suit filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned District Munsif, Nannilam (hereinafter referred as the "Trial Court") dismissed the suit holding that the respondent herein is not entitled for the relief of declaration of title and for possession. The respondent herein therefore filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur in A.S.No.45 of 2005. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent herein has filed two applications in I.A.Nos.46 and 48 of 2006, one to receive additional documents and the other to amend the plaint with respect to the northern boundary described in the schedule to the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Court") heard the arguments in both the appeal and the applications referred to above and by judgment and decree dated 8. 2006, allowed both the applications filed by the respondent herein for reception of additional documents and for amendment of the plaint and further allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh trial. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the respondent in the said appeal has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended:-

.(a) that the Appellate Court without setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court has merely remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding it afresh;

.(b) that the Appellate Court did not assign any reason for remanding the matter except saying that since the applications for reception of additional documents and amendment of the plaint are allowed, the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal; and

.(c) that the Appellate Court should have decided the matter on merits, if necessary, taking further evidence and hence, ought not to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that since certain documents, which could not be filed before the Trial Court, have been filed before the Appellate Court and the applications filed by the respondent for reception of additional documents has been allowed by the Appellate Court along with the application for amendment of plaint, it has necessitated the Appellate Court to remand the matter for de novo trial by the Trial Judge himself. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order of remand is perfectly in order.

5. I have heard Mr. K.A. Basheer Ahamed, the learned counsel for the appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. Gopalan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. It is true that the respondent herein has filed two applications, one in I.A.No.46 of 2006 and another in I.A.No.48 of 2006 for reception of documents and for amendment of the plaint respectively. The learned Appellate Judge having allowed those applications ought to have decided the appeal on merits considering the additional documents, permitting the appellant herein to file additional written statement and permitting both the parties to let in oral evidence. The Appellate Court has ample power under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to examine any witness for the purpose of production of document or for any other substantial cause. Thus, the Appellate Court after entertaining the applications for reception of additiona