( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of remand in a suit filed on the allegations that the property had been partitioned in a particular manner but still the defendants were trying to interfere with his rights. The defence plea was that though partition had taken place, it was neither in the manner stated by the plaintiff nor at the alleged time. It was contended that partition had taken place at a different time and manner. Although the fact of partition was admitted by both the parties yet the time and manner of partition was disputed. The trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal, the defendant-appellants sought permission to file as many as nine documents. In spite of objections by the plaintiff the court admitted these documents in evidence and proceeded to remand the matter to the trial Court with directions to frame additional issues in the light of the documents filed and to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

( 2 ) SRI Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that neither additional evidence should have been admitted by the court below nor order of remand could be made merely