JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - The applicants were defendants in the suit. This suit was for an injunction restraining them from interfering with a certain pathway. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed and the lower appellate court accepted the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court. The defendants felt aggrieved and hence this appeal. 2. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants were either trying to raise constructions or put obstructions in a pathway marked by letters B, H, K, N, O, M, H, Z, F in the map attached to the plaint. Their case further was that this pathway through the plots Nos. 113 and 114. Issues were struck by the trial court and parties led evidence in support of their respective case. The Trial court disposed of the suit primarily on the basis of its own inspection of the site. The inspection note was marked as paper no. A-51. The following words in the judgment of the trial court were significant: - "In this case, at the joint request and insistence a local inspection was conducted by the court itself for better appreciation of the evidence and the site. The report of the said inspection is A-51." The trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants had made constructions on the passage in dispute. It also held that the plaintiff's had failed to establish that the constructions made by the defendants were liable to be demolished. It also held that the defendants had succeeded in proving that the constructions really existed on the land owned and occupied by them (defendants) and this land formed part of their tenancy. 3. Before the lower appellate court a grievance was made by and on behalf of the plaintiffs that despite an application being made for the preparation of a survey map, the trial court did not advert itself at all to this request. It was also urged that the trial court did not care to give its decision upon the report made by the Commissioner appointed by it and also upon the map submitted by the commissioner along with his report even though the parties had objected to the same on affidavits. The argument, therefore, was that the trial court contented itself by relying solely upon its own inspection note. 4. The argument, therefore, was that the trial court contented itself by relying solely upon its own inspection note. 4. Before the lower appellate court, it appears, the learned counsel for the defendant appellants had conceded to the position that the trial court had not cared to either look into the Commissioner's report and the map annexed thereto or to dispose of the objections preferred against the same. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants appellants objected to the request made by and on behalf of the plaintiffs that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for proper determination of the issues involved in the case. 5. The lower appellate court has taken the view that for a correct decision of the case it was imperative upon the trial court to have acceded to the request of the plaintiffs for the preparation of the survey map. It has also taken the view that the trial court erred in not disposing of the objections made against the commissioner's report and the map annexed thereto. The lower appellate court, however, passed an open order of remand thus giving the parties fresh opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. 6. In my opinion it was neither necessary to remand the matter to the trial court nor to permit the parties to lead fresh evidence. If the lower appellate court felt that it was necessary in the interest of justice that a survey report should be obtained, there was no impediment in its way in getting the same itself. Likewise, if the lower appellate court felt that the trial court should have disposed of the objection filed by the parties to the Commissioner's report and the map annexed thereto, it could have considered the affidavits and disposed of the objections itself. Orders of remand are to be passed sparingly and not as a matter of routine. Of late, it has come to the notice of this court that the appellate courts just shirk their responsibility of deciding the matters finally on merits after scanning the evidence on record themselves and after separating the chaff from the wheat. After all, they are the final courts of fact and they cannot avoid performing their statutory duty by throwing the ball back to the trial court. The order of remand in the instant case wholly unjustified and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. After all, they are the final courts of fact and they cannot avoid performing their statutory duty by throwing the ball back to the trial court. The order of remand in the instant case wholly unjustified and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 7. After completion of the dictation of the judgment, Sri S. K. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent stood up and tried to inform the court that the respondent no. 1 died long back and the appellant has failed to take any steps to bring the legal heirs on record. This is a bare statement not supported by an affidavit or application. The Court cannot act upon this statement. Moreover, the learned counsel is not prepared to make a definite statement and take responsibility of of the same. 8. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.9.1978 passed by the Civil Judge, Ghazipur, is set aside. The learned Civil Judge is directed to restore the Civil appeal no. 54 of 1977 to its original number and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The parties shall bear their own costs.