The appellate court has the power to decide the case finally if the evidence on record is sufficient to enable it to pronounce judgment.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. The present revision has been filed by Sucha Singh, hereinafter called "the petitioner", directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dated 15.6.1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court had accepted the application of the respondent setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The case was remanded to the trial Court at Sunam to consider the evidence produced by the parties and decide the same afresh.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit for possession of the suit land in January, 1981 against the respondent. He claimed himself to be the owner of the land in question. The suit was contested by the respondent on various pleas. The respondent had set up his own ownership and has claimed that he is owner by adverse possession. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court had framed 11 issues. The parties were afforded opportunity to lead evidence. On 10.3.1987 the learned trial Court had decreed the suit. The respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge at Sangrur.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed for amendment of the written statement in the Court of learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the application for amendment of the written statement. Consequently, on the basis of the amended pleadings, five additional issues were framed. After framing of additional issues, the learned Additional District Judge instead of remanding the case preferred to record the evidence. The parties were given the chance to produce the evidence.

4. When the case came up for hearing, the respondent preferred an application for remanding the case to the trial Court. The said application was contested by the petitioner contending inter alia, that at this stage remanding of the case is not called for and it will delay the disposal of the appeal.

5. The learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide the impugned order held that though the appeal is pending for the past many years, the case should have been remanded when additional issues were framed. He felt that the learned Additional District Judge (his predecessor) should not have recorded the evidence. According to the learned Additional District Judge, it is better that the learned trial Court expresses the opinion so that either party may not lose a further right of appeal. Accordingly, an order remanding the case was made and judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the findings of the teamed Additional District Judge contending that once the entire evidence as such has been recorded, there is no justification in remanding the case to the trial Court.

7. What is being urged gets support from the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") permits the Appellate Court to remand the case under certain eventualities. It reads as under:-

"23. Remand of case by Appellate Court:-

Where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal, the Appellate Court may, if it thinks fit, by order remand the case, and may further direct what issue or issues shall be tried in the case so remanded, and shall send a copy of its judgment and order to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, with directions to re-admit the suit under its original number in the register of civil suits, and proceed to determine the suit; and the evidence (if any) recorded during the original trial shall, subject to all just exceptions, be evidence during the trial after remand."

8 As one glances through the aforesaid relevant provision, it is abundantly clear that the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 23 of the