ORDER :-This petition by the original defendants is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st Dec. 1977, passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Satara, in Civil Appeal No.34 of 1977. 2. Original suit by the plaintiffs, being Civil Suit No.81 of 1972, was filed against the defendants in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai, for possession of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial Court struck nine issues, recorded oral and documentary evidence and on consideration thereof was ultimately, however, pleased by its judgment and order dated 24th December, 1976, to dismiss the said suit. The said decision was challenged by the plaintiffs by preferring against the same Civil Appeal No.34 of 1977 to the District Court, Satara, The learned Extra Assistant Judge, hearing the said appeal set aside the trial Court's judgment and order and remanded the suit with a direction that the same be heard by allowing both the sides to lead additional evidence, if any, in view of the plaintiffs' application exhibit 10 in appeal and to then decide the suit in accordance with law. It is against this appellate order dated 31st Dec. 1977 that the present petition has been filed by the original defendants. 3. Hearing Mr. S.G. Sheth, the learned Advocate for the petitioners-defendants and Mr. W.S. Devnani, the learned Advocate for the respondents-plaintiffs, and going through the impugned judgment and order, I find it difficult to uphold the same. Wholesale remand as of the nature directed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge is, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the relevant pro-visions of law, one which cannot be successfully sustained. 4. If in an appeal an application is made by either parties to the appeal for additional evidence, the Appellate Court is expected to consider the said application not merely in the abstract as appears to have been done in the present case but in the light of the provisions of R.25 or R.27 of O.41 of the Civil P.C. Only thereafter the Appellate Court may pass appropriate orders on the application for additional evidence. Of course, it would be open to the Appellate Court to reject the application for additional evidence if it finds the said rejection justified. Of course, it would be open to the Appellate Court to reject the application for additional evidence if it finds the said rejection justified. But if the Appellate Court finds that a case for additional evidence has been made out, it should normally then proceed in accordance with either R.25 or R.27 of O.41 of the said Code. The present case was not one governed by R.23 of the O.41 of the Code because the trial Court had heard and decided the suit not on any preliminary point but on all the issues arising before it for determination. In the instant case, a short and cryptic order is passed by the Appellate Court setting aside the entire judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanding the suit for fresh trial with liberty to both the sides to lead evidence and with direction to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh. Such an order is, in my view, highly unsatisfactory. Even if the Appellate Court was inclined to grant the application exhibit 10, appropriate order consequent thereupon was not to set aside the entire judgment and decree passed by the trial Court but would be one either under and in accordance with R.25 or R.27 of O.41 of the code. 5. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 31st Dec. 1977 passed by the Appellate Court is set aside and Civil Appeal No.34 of 1977 is sent back to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court will now hear the plaintiff-appellants' application exhibit 10 in the said appeal in question and proceed further with the matter in the light of the observations made herein and in accordance with law. 6. As the impugned appellate order now set aside by this judgment has resulted in delaying the proceedings, the Appellate Court shall expedite the proceedings hereafter, giving top priority thereto. 7. Rule earlier issued on this petition is made absolute in terms aforesaid. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Further order on motion by Mr. W.S. Devnani for the respondents for speaking to the minutes: 8. Heard Mr. S.G. Sheth for the petitioners and W.S. Devnani for the respondents. 9. 7. Rule earlier issued on this petition is made absolute in terms aforesaid. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Further order on motion by Mr. W.S. Devnani for the respondents for speaking to the minutes: 8. Heard Mr. S.G. Sheth for the petitioners and W.S. Devnani for the respondents. 9. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that in the interests of justice, it was necessary to allow the plaintiffs to lead evidence in respect of certain contentions mentioned in the application exhibit 10. A case for additional evidence having thus been made out, it is now for the Appellate Court to decide whether the said additional evidence should be taken by itself or whether the trial Court or any other subordinate Court should take such evidence and send it to the Appellate Court vide R.28 of O.41 of the Civil Procedure. The provisions of R.29 of O.41 of the said Code should also be complied with. Petition allowed.