The decision emphasizes the right to a fair trial by allowing amendment of pleadings and introduction of new evidence after a remand.

1st defendant in O.S.No.670 of 2008 before the 1st Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara challenged the decree passed in the suit before the Court of Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in AS.No.238 of 2014. In that appeal, the lower appellate court considered the rival contentions and found that the pleadings are not sufficient to effectively adjudicate the case. It also observed that the pleadings have to be amended suitably to decide the case fully and finally. With these observations the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court for a fresh consideration of the entire matters after affording the parties an opportunity to amend the pleadings and adduce fresh evidence. Aggrieved by the remand order the appellant has come up before this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the contesting respondents/plaintiffs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant did not seriously challenge the ultimate order of remand by the lower appellate court. But, according to the learned counsel, some observations in the judgment of the court below will foreclose the contentions of the appellant. According to him, the observations by the lower appellate court that as per Ext.A5 series plan, it is specifically admitted by the 1st defendant that there is a way having width of 90 c.m. through the northern side of B1 schedule property and the plan self-speaks as to the existence of the way, are incorrect statements. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, with reference to the commissioner's report and Ext.A5 series plan, argued that there is a candid admission by the appellant regarding the existence of way. It is also contended by the plaintiffs that if the disputed way is closed, their property would become landlocked without any access.

Having regard to the rival submissions and on going through the impugned judgment, I am of the view that the lower appellate court is justified in affording an opportunity to the parties to go for a fresh trial. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that pursuant to the remand order, the plaint has been suitably amended and steps have been taken. I find no reason to interfere with the order of remand. However, it is made clear that the court below shall dispose of the case, after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and after hearing them, dispose the case on merits, untrammelled by any of the observations contained in the remand order.

With these observations the appeal is disposed of.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.

A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE