Honble JAIN, - This miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sojat dated May 20, 1993 by which he has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Sojat dated April 09, 1983 decreeing the suit for the recovery of Rs.1107/-as arrears of rent and mesne profits and the amount spent in carrying out the repairs and also awarding mesne profits at the rate of Rs.100/- per month from 13.01.77 to 19.12.78 (the date on which possession of the disputed property was delivered), allowed the defendants application moved under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. on cost of Rs.125/- and directed the trial Court to decide the suit afresh after recording the statement of the Commissioner. (2). It is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sojat is contrary to the express provisions of Order 41 Rule 28, C.P.C. and the judgement and decree of the trial Court could not be set aside. There is a great force in these contentions. (3). Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose will be served in issuing notice to the defendant-respondent. It will simply delay the disposal of the appeal and put him to unnecessary expenses and trouble. (4). The operative part of the order dated 20.05.93 of the appellate Court runs as under : ^^vihy la[;k 29@92 dks vkafkd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vihyk.V ds izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vknsk 41 fu;e 27 lifBr /kkjk 151 fl-iz-la- fnukad 25-1-93 dks :- 125@& ¼,d lkS iPphl :i;s½ dkWLV ij Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 9-4-83 dks vikLr fd;k tkdj i=koyh dks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vij flfoy U;k;k/khk lkstr dks bl funsZk ds lkFk izsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd lEcfU/kr dfeuj ds c;ku ys[kc) fd, tkosa vkSj fu;ekuqlkj izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k rhu ekg dh vof/k esa djsA bl vihy dk O;; mHk; i{k viuk viuk ogu djsaA (5). Order 41 Rule 29, C.P.C. runs as under : "Mode of taking additional evidence — Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the Appellate Court may either take such evidence, or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal is preperred or any other subordinate court to take such evidence and to send it when take to the Appellate Court." (6). It is thus clear that an appellate Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment & decree of a trial Court while passing order under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. The appellate Court could direct the trial Court to record the statement of the Commissioner or itself record his statement. The lower appellate Court adopted very easy course for deciding the appeal without caring in the least the express provisions of law and the convenience of the parties. It is being noticed that Shri M.L. Nogia is deciding civil appeals in this manner to achieve required disposal of cases. He should immediately stop this (7). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sojat dated 20.05.93 is set aside. He will himself examine the Commissioner in the presence of the parties and, thereafter, will decide the appeal in accordance with law. (8) The learned District & Sessions Judge, Pali will occasionally check whether Shri Nogia has stopped deciding civil appeals in the aforesaid manner. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pali.