Appellate courts cannot allow additional evidence or remand cases merely to enable parties to fill evidentiary lacunae. Strict adherence to due diligence requirements is mandatory, and litigation should be adjudicated on merits unless a radical procedural defect necessitates a remand.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants/defendants have filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 14/08/2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Ambah District Morena in Civil Appeal No.3A/2014, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff has been allowed, and while allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, the judgment and decree dated 20/12/2013 passed by the learned trial Court has been set aside, and the matter has been remanded for fresh decision.

2. The exposition of facts giving rise to this appeal, in a nutshell, is that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 - Vaikunthi against the appellants and respondent No.2 in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.355, admeasuring 0.62 hectare, situated at Village Sathi, Tehsil Porsa, District Morena, with the pleadings that she is the bhumi swami and is in possession of the suit land. It was pleaded that Jagdish is the son-in-law of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. The face of plaintiff/respondent No.1 resembles with Smt. Shankaria, wife of appellant No.1 - Jagidsh. It was alleged that the appellants got executed the registered sale deed of the suit land in their names by presenting Smt. Shankaria, wife of appellant No.1, as Vaikunthi, the plaintiff/respondent No.1. The appellants got the sale deed executed in their favour by committing fraud; therefore, the sale deed is null and void. It was further alleged that, on the strength of this sale deed, the appellants are trying to get their names mutated in the revenue records and to encroach upon the suit land. Upon these pleadings, she sought declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendants Jagdish and Harilal.

3. The appellants/defendants were proceeded ex parte before the Trial Court.

4. After completion of the trial, the trial Court passed the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2013, whereby the suit has been dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which was registered as Civil Appeal No.3A/14. In this appeal, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to bring on record the opinion of a handwriting expert as regards the thumb impression of Smt. Vaikunthi on the registered sale deed dated 31.03.2012.

5. The First Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 14.08.2014, allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and remanded the case to the trial Court with directions to provide an opportunity to the respondents/defendants to file written statement, and upon filing of the written statement, to frame issues, and provide an opportunity to adduce evidence to both the parties, and decide the case in accordance with law on merits.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellants/defendants, Jagdish and Harilal, have filed the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was no reason for not submitting fingerprint expert report before the trial Court. Without sufficient grounds, the learned Court below erred in allowing the application. In paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court observed that under the provisions of Ord