Short Note : 1. By this revision, the applicant seeks interference with the order of remand made by the lower appellate Court after allowing the amendment of the plaint at the stage of first appeal. 2. Held : The order impugned so far as it relates to the allowing of the application for amendment is an order made in exercise of the discretion of the lower appellate Court. The order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction and, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference with the same by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 3. So far as the other part of the impugned order directing remand of the entire suit is concerned, the same is apparently illegal and without jurisdiction. The lower appellate Court while allowing the application for amendment had directed that the defendant shall be given time to apply for consequential amendment of the written statement. This direction was quite proper. But the lower appellate Court fell into an error while remanding the entire suit for disposal afresh. The proper course should have been to retain the seisin of the appeal and frame additional issues, if any were to arise, on the basis of the pleadings raised by the defendant while making the consequential amendment of the written statement. Such additional issues could have been either tried by the lower appellate Court itself or could be remitted to the trial Court for recording findings thereon after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, and after receiving the findings from the trial Court, the lower appellate Court should have proceeded to decide the appeal. Revision partly allowed.