The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of remand should be carefully considered, and remand should only be ordered when it is just and appropriate in the interest of justice.

1. This appeal is filed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2009 made in A.S.No.326 of 2002, whereby the lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2001 made in O.S.No.607 of 1997, passed by the District Munsif Court, Namakkal and remanded the matter with a direction to permit the first respondent herein to mark the documents filed along with I.A.No.8 of 2009 in A.S.No.326 of 2002 and adduce the evidence on those documents and decide the case afresh.

2. The facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this appeal are as follows:-

The suit in O.S.No.607 of 1997 was filed by the first respondent herein as against the second respondent herein for a partition of their house property. In the said suit, the third respondent herein viz., Perumal Gounder as well as one Sathiya were impleaded as the defendants 2 & 3. They were impleaded by way of abundant caution, since both of them were residing in the suit property. In the said suit, the said Sathiya, who was impleaded as defendant No.3 filed a counter by making a counter claim on the ground of adverse possession. Pending the suit, the said Sathiya had died and his minor daughter viz., Selvi was impleaded as the defendant represented by her grand father Thangavelu, the appellant herein.

3. In order to prove the claim, on the side of the first respondent/plaintiff, the first respondent has examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 Sale Deed dated 11.09.1969 executed by Sampoornam and others in favour of one Mariyayee before the trial Court. On the side of the minor 3rd defendant, the grand father of the minor 3rd defendant, the appellant herein examined himself as D.W.1. That apart one Thiyagarajan and the third and second respondent in these appeal examined themselves as D.W.2 to D.W.5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff and decreed the counter claim made by the deceased Sathiya.

4. Aggrieved over the same, the first respondent herein filed the appeal in A.S.No.326 of 2002 before the lower appellate Court. Pending the said appeal, the minor child of the deceased Sathiya had also died. Hence, the appeal was prosecuted by the grand father of said Selvi viz., Thangavelu/the appellant herein. In the appeal proceedings, the first respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.23 of 2006 to receive the reply statement, but the said application was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Subsequently, the first respondent filed another application in I.A.No.8 of 2009 to receive the additional document in the appeal. The lower appellate Court by allowing the said application, has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence in respect of those documents and direct the trial Court to decide the case afresh. Aggrieved over the same, the 4th respondent before the lower appellate Court has preferred the present appeal.

5. Thelearned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as a routine, the order of remand cannot be ordered. The lower Appellate Court itself can decide the issue involved in this appeal based on the available document and it can itself decide the issue involved in the appeal based on the available evidence. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also relied upon two judgments reported in (H.P.Vedavyasachar .Vs. Shivashankara & Another and reported in (Arockiaprakash Vs. Rangasamy).

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents made his submissions supporting the order of remand passed by the Lower Appellate Court.

7. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. Ona careful scrutiny of the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, I find that it remanded the matter for the purpose o