Judgment : This appeal in against the order of remand made in A.S.No.34 of 1984 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. 2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the suit for money against one Krishnan and the appellant, arraying them as defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.2645 of 1979on the fileof District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai. The claim is for Rs.2,295. The first defendant was subsequently removed from the array of parties. The second defendant had resisted the claim. Inter alia, he had also claimed the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. After contest, the learned District Munsif had held that the second defendant is entitled to benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had filed appeal in A.S.No.34 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. In the appeal, the respondent has filed some more documents and prayed that they may be received as additional evidence under O.41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Subordinate Judge had allowed the application for reception of the documents as additional evidence and marked them as Exs.B-7 to B-16 and had also allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the trial court for deciding the matter afresh, after examining the documents received as additional evidence and also gave an opportunity to both sides to let in further evidence, oral and documentary. Aggrieved by the said order of remand, the second defendant in the suit has filed this appeal. 3. Miss.B.Sumathi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that under Sec96(4), C.P.C. no appeal shall lie against a judgment in a case of small cause nature, where the claim is less than Rs.3,000 excepting on a question of law and that the lower appellate court is wrong in admitting the appeal without formulating the question of law as enjoined in Sec96(4), C.P.C. She would further submit that the question as to whether a person is entitled to benefits of Act 13 of 1980 is not a question of law but purely a question of fact and even assuming that the appeal is admitted on that point, inasmuch as it is a question of fact, the appeal will have to be dismissed. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the trial court has not considered the question or eligibility of the second defendant to claim benefits of Act 13 of 1980 in accordance with law and so the appeal is maintainable before the lower appellate court and remanding the case for fresh disposal on the materials made available in the appellate stage is quite in order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. Miss.Sumathi relied upon Govindasami Mudaliar v. Palani Mudaliar, 1985 T.L.N.J. 204. The facts of the case on which that ruling was given are almost similar to the facts of the instant case before me. In that case, suit was laid for a sum of Rs.686.25 due on a pronote. The defendant pleaded failure of consideration and also claimed benefits of Act 13 of 1980. The learned District Munsif rejected those contentions and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.112 of 1980 on the file of Sub-Court, Villupuram. The learned Subordinate Judge held that appeal as not maintainable under Sec.96(4), C.P.C. as the decree was in a suit of nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and the value of the suit was less than Rs.3,000 and no question of law was involved. However, at the request of the appellant, the memorandum of appeal was returned for the purpose of preferring a revision. Accordingly the appellant had taken return of the memorandum of appeal and preferred the revision. It was how the matter came up before this court. My learned brother Justice Kader had held that the question whether defendant is entitled to the benefit of Act 13 of 1980 is dependant only on the question whether the annual income is less than Rs.4,800 and therefore it is a pure question of fact and not a question of law. With great respect, I agree with what Justice Kader had held. But I find a difference on facts in the instant case which is rather vital. With great respect, I agree with what Justice Kader had held. But I find a difference on facts in the instant case which is rather vital. It is not as if, the learned appellate Judge came to a different conclusion on the same set of facts which were considered by the learned trial District Munsif, He had allowed the petition for reception of documents as additional evidence and had remitted the case back to the trial court for disposal according to law, after taking into consideration the documents received in the appellate stage. So by virtue of the order of remand, the trial District Munsif was obliged to consider the question which is one of facts with fresh materials, On the fresh facts available, the learned District Munsif was directed to arrive at a finding. Again the question revolves on facts, of course with some fresh facts. In the interest of Justice, for getting a full and complete adjudication on fresh facts available, the order of remand is inevitable and cannot be assailed particularly when a learned appellate Judge has definitely given a finding that reception of these documents as additional evidence is germane to decide the matter in issue between the parties. The lower appellate court has held that without these additional documents being received as evidence a correct decision cannot be rendered in this case and has allowed the application for reception of the documents as additional evidence. I do not find any thing wrong in his finding. 5. In view of my discussion above, it follows that this appeal has to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.