An appellate Court is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits using available evidence under Section 107 CPC, and remand to a lower court should be an exception, strictly reserved for cases involving significant procedural errors or lack of evidence, rather than a substitute for judicial reappraisal.

ORDER:

Heard Ms. K. Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy District (‘appellate Court’) in C.M.A.No.36 of 2022, wherein an appeal preferred challenging the order dated 11.10.2022 in I.A.No.618 of 2021 in O.S.No.1286 of 2021 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy Disttrict (‘trial Court’), has been allowed by setting aside the order and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration on merits.

3. The background facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.1286 of 2021 before the trial Court to restrain the respondents from interfering with residential house No.16-26, consisting of 155 square yards situated at Bombay colony, Ramachandrapuram town and Mandal Sanghareddy District. Along with the main suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.618 of 2021 in O.S.No.1286 of 2021 seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit. Initially, ad interim injunction was granted. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.10.2022, considering the pleadings and documentary evidence in Exs.P-1 to P-4 and Exs.R-1 to R-5, the ad interim injunction was made absolute.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/defendants have preferred C.M.A.No.36 of 2022 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court upon considering the version of both the respective parties and the documentary evidence, after extensive discussion of the documents, arrived at a conclusion that that the version of the petitioner cannot be accepted in totality and that the trial Court ought to have visualized the documents of both the respective parties when there is a cloud cast upon the title documents. Since there is a cast on title, the appellate Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the trial Court to arrive at a just and proper decision after considering all the factual and legal aspects. Further, it is held that the observations made by the appellate Court shall not be considered while considering the matter afresh and thus, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.618 of 2021 in O.S.No.1286 of 2021 dated 11.10.2022 has been set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh inquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner.

5. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the appellate Court failed to appreciate the order of the trial Court while passing injunction order by examining the evidences, and therefore, erroneously remanded the matter to re-decide the issue again. It is pleaded that the appellate Court failed to appreciate the order passed by the trial Court and therefore remanded the matter without assigning proper reason. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the suit is filed for simplicitor injunction and when there is prima facie case of threat of encroachment, grant of temporary injunction, is sufficient and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

6. The parties to the suit have not only presented the facts by means of affidavits in support of their respective version, but also have produced documentary evidence in the form of Exs.P-1 to P-3 and Exs.R-1 to R-5 a