JUDGMENT N. N. Mithal, J. - This appeal assailing an order of remand is fixed for admission today. Sri S.S. Chauhan has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. As prayed by learned counsel for both the parties 1 proceeded to hear and dispose of the appeal itself. 2. The appellant had filed a suit for injunction in respect of agricultural property that was once owned by Ram Dayal. The plaintiff claimed to have been adopted by Ram Dayal. The defendant no. 1 contested this claim as the widow of Ram Dayal and disputed that plaintiff had ever been adopted by her husband. At a belated stage in the trial court the defendant applied for bringing on record some additional documentary evidence and also prayed that the disputed signature of Ram Dayal on the adoption deed be got compared with his admitted signatures. Both these applications 221/C & 222/C were rejected by the trial court and it proceeded to decree the suit. 3. During the pendency of appeal another application was moved by the defendant under Order 41, Rule 27, C. P. C. for admission of further additional evidence. After taking into consideration the relevancy and importance of these documents it accepted the same by the order under appeal. The court, however, remanded the case directing the trial court to reconsider the applications 221/C & 222/C in the light of the observations made in the judgment and to give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to do the needful, should these applications be allowed by it. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the order under appeal. 5 The appellant seems to have no grounds as far as admission of additional evidence by the court is concerned but he felt aggrieved by the order remanding the case. It is submitted that the suit was filed so far back as 1976 and if the matter is sent down to the trial court several years will again be consumed in getting the suit decided over again and even thereafter usual appeals will follow. There appears to be some merit in this submission. It is submitted that the suit was filed so far back as 1976 and if the matter is sent down to the trial court several years will again be consumed in getting the suit decided over again and even thereafter usual appeals will follow. There appears to be some merit in this submission. It was not necessary in the circumstances of the present case to remand the matter as the appellate court itself was quite competent to dispose of defendant's applications seeking permission to file additional evidence and for examining the experts for comparison of the disputed signatures of the deceased Ram Dayal. It was also competent to record the evidence in this respect without having recourse to the remand of suit for the purpose. The learned counsel for the respondent also had no serious objection if the matter is decided by the appellate court. Since fresh evidence has also been admitted on the record by the lower appellate court it may be necessary to give to the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence in this respect too. All this can be done by that court without causing any prejudice to any of the parties. 6. In the circumstances the order of remand is set aside. Now the lower appellate court itself shall decide the applications 221 & 222-C on merits and consider the necessity of permitting the parties to adduce such further evidence as to enable them to prove any document on the record including those admitted by the appellate court vide 80/-C. The appeal will then be decided on merits on the basis of the evidence then on record. The appeal is disposed of accordingly at the admission stage itself. There will be no order as to costs.