( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the landlord assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge remanding the case to the Land Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the respondents 1 and 2 filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the disputed lands. The Land tribunal after conducting enquiry granted occupancy certificate. Then writ Petition Nos. 1481 and 1482 of 1983 were filed. This Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. After remand, the Land Tribunal after holding the enquiry passed an order which is challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge again remanded the matter. That order is challenged in the appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant firstly contended that the respondent-tenants are not in possession of the lands on 1-3-1974 and there is no iota of evidence to show that they were tenants of the lands under him. He mortgaged the lands and thereafter he filed a suit in original Suit No. 181 of 1952-53 and also Execution Case in Original suit No. 187 of 1961 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, K. R. Nagar. After contest, decree for possession was granted and possession was delivered back to him as per Annexure-E. Therefore, the Land Tribunal erred in granting the Certificate. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-tenants contended that though the Chairman of the Tribunal held that there is no entry in the r. T. C. and no Guttige Receipts are produced, the other members of the tribunal held that the respondents are tenants and awarded the Certificate. The learned Judge has properly remanded the case. There are no merits in the case and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) IN view of the above contentions, the point for consideration is, whether the respondents 1 and 2 are the tenants of the disputed lands as on 1-3-1974 or tenants under any other law creating right for grant of the occupancy certificate? ( 6 ) THE facts of the case which are not disputed are that the lands belong to the appellant as a owner. He mortgaged the land to one sawkar. There afterwards, he filed suit Original Suit No. 181 of 1952-53. ( 6 ) THE facts of the case which are not disputed are that the lands belong to the appellant as a owner. He mortgaged the land to one sawkar. There afterwards, he filed suit Original Suit No. 181 of 1952-53. After obtaining redemption of mortgage, he filed Execution Case in original Suit No. 187 of 1961 and possession was delivered back to him, that is as per Annexure-E. The delivery of possession was given through the Court and he was put in possession. The tenants have also signed the delivery receipt. The question is, whether the respondents 1 and 2 have been in possession of the lands even after such delivery in favour of the landlord. It is seen that no revenue receipt showing the payment of land revenue nor any Guttige receipt showing that they paid Guttige amount is filed. The tenants contended that they have adduced oral evidence of the adjacent cultivator to show that they have been in possession of the land since last 30 years. If a person is in possession of the land, definitely his name would be entered in the revenue records particularly when he is in occupation or at least, he would have paid the land revenue to show that he is in possession of the land or in some cases when the persons in possession of the land obtain manures showing that they are in possession of the land or loans are obtained on the basis of the land, their names would find a place in the records. No such evidence is adduced before the Land Reforms Tribunal except the oral evidence of the tenants and the adjacent cultivator. On the other hand, the documentary evidence produced by the landlord shows that he is the owner of the land. He was put in possession back by the Court. Therefore, the contention of the tenants that they are in possession is not tenable. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-tenants relied on the judgment of this Court reported in the case of Kempegowda and Another v puttaswamaiah and Another. The facts of that case are quite different. In the present case, when the tenants are not in possession, question of applying the principle does not arise. Necessity of remanding a case arises if a party was not given proper opportunity to adduce evidence. The facts of that case are quite different. In the present case, when the tenants are not in possession, question of applying the principle does not arise. Necessity of remanding a case arises if a party was not given proper opportunity to adduce evidence. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that there was no opportunity. Before the Land Tribunal, both the parties were given sufficient opportunity after the case was remanded by this Court earlier. Therefore, the question of remand on the ground that there was no opportunity does not arise. Remand of the case has to be made only keeping the principles under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. In this case, already there was a remand by this Court. Remanding the matter again and again will not only procrastinate the litigation and it makes the party to spend heavy amounts and ultimately to lose the source of livelihood. That is not the scope of the justice system. Therefore, the Court has to give cogent and convincing reasons while remanding the matters. As stated supra, we do not feel there is any requirement of remand and we have already held that the tenants were not in possession of the lands. They are not tenants. So not entitled for grant of occupancy rights. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .