( 1. ) THIS appeal under Order 43, Rule l (u) of the Code of. Civil Procedure has been directed by the plaintiff/appellant against the order dated 31st October, 1985, passed by the IInd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar, in Civil Appeal No. 12-A of 1983, remanding the case to the trial Court deciding it afresh.

( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal may be shortly stated thus : The plaintiff/appellant had instituted a suit for possession of certain land and damages amounting to Rs. 100/- on the basis of his title over the said land under a registered sale-deed. The defendants/respondents resisted the suit by denying the plaintiffs claim by pleading that the plaintiffs vendor had no substituting title to the suit land so as to enable him to transfer the same to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded that the land belonged to them and they were in possession of the same by virtue of their own rights. The trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 19th September, 1972. The plaintiff went up in appeal and made an application dated 21st March, 1973, before the lower appellate Court for appointment of a Commissioner to make measurements of the land. The said application was rejected by the lower appellate Court and the appeal was also dismissed on 6-8-1974.

( 3. ) THE plaintiff/appellant preferred second appeal before this Court being second appeal No. 742 of 1974. This Court by its order dated 19-2-1982 set aside the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and remanded the case to the trial Court for a fresh decision with the directions :

" (i) that the trial Court shall appoint a person to whom it considers suitable as Commissioner, in case the parties do not agree on any particular person, to do the measurement in terms of the prayer contained in the application dated 21st March, 1973 referred to hereinabove of the plaintiff and to report whether the suit land is covered with that land : (ii) that after the report of the Commissioner is received, objections would be invited from the parties on the report : (iii) that if any of the parties wants to cross-examine the Commissioner, an opportunity would be given and thereafter, after hearing the parties afresh on the basis of the report of the Commissioner and the statement of the Commissioner, if any, the evidence already on record would decide the suit according to law on its merits. "

( 4. ) AFTER receipt of the records with the remand order, the learned trial Judge appointed Revenue Inspector as Commissioner to make necessary measurements in accordance with the remand order. The Commissioner submitted his report on 27-1-1983 to the trial Court. The trial Court thereafter by its judgment and decree dated 22-9-1983 decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession and damages.

( 5. ) THE defendants/respondents challenged the said judgment and decree in appeal before the IInd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar. The defendants made an application on 3-9-1985 for appointment of Commissioner and fresh measurements before the lower appellate court which was rejected on 9-9-1985. The defendants/respondents made another application on 14-2-1984 before the lower appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code for admission of additional evidence. The defendants desired to produce in evidence two sale-deeds dated 8-7-1942 and 5-11-1957 which were already on record as well as an application purporting to have been made by one Nathuram, the late husband of defendant/respondent No. l (c) Mst. Saribai to the Naib Tahsildar, Banda. The lower appellate Court by its impugned order dated 31-10-1985 allowed the said application by holding that the said documents were necessary for just decision of the case and, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the case to the trial Court with a direction that the defendants be allowed an opportunity to prove the said documents with a right of rebu