Judgment : Plaintiff in O.S.No.781 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif, Kallakurichi, aggrieved by the order of remand dated 30.9.1993 made by the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in A.S.No.56 of 1989 has filed the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent. 3. The unsuccessful defendant has filed appeal A.S.No.56 of 1989 before the Sub Court, Vridhachalam. In the said appeal he also filed I.A.No.397 of 1992 for reception of certain documents as additional evidence. On the basis of the request made by the respondent herein appellant therein, the lower appellate court without going into the decision rendered by the trial court, remanded the matter to the trial court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to my notice that though the lower appellate court has stated that the judgment of the trial court is not sustainable, the learned Judge has not considered the findings rendered by the trial court on all aspects. In so far as reception of certain documents as additional evidence is concerned, it is not clear why these documents had not been placed before the trial court. It is settled law that unless the concerned satisfies the appellate court with reasons for non-filing of the relevant documents before the trial court, the appellate court cannot accept these documents in a routine manner and remit the matter to the trial court for re-consideration of the whole issue once again. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has very much relied on a decision of K.M.Natarajan, J., reported in Srinivasagam v. Kuttiah , A.I.R. 1989 Mad. 18. After considering similar claim and order of remand, the learned Judge in that decision has concluded thus: “…First of all before ever ordering remand of the case, the appellate court ought to have discussed the finding of the trial court and arrived at a conclusion that the said finding is liable to be set aside and then only the appellate court could think of remitting the case back. Secondly an order of remand cannot be made just to fill up a lacuna by allowing the party to adduce evidence but the order of remand is possible only if the court feels that further evidence is necessary for the arrival at the just decision, if the appellate court feels that additional evidence is necessary or additional evidence can be allowed to be adduced by one party, under O.41, Rule 27, C.P.C., it could be adopted and the appellate court itself can dispose of the appeal on merits. But that cannot be a ground for remanding the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal.” It is also relevant to note that in the case of Achammal v. Kistama Naidu , 81 L.W. 291 Venkataraman, J. has held that: “…It is settled law, at any rate, so far as the court to concerned, under O.41, Rule 23, that, before the suit could be remanded to the trial court, it is necessary for the appellate court to find that the decree of the trial court should be set aside…” In the light of the relevant provisions, namely, O.41, Rule 23 to Rule 29, C.P.C. as well as various decisions and after going through the impugned order of the appellate court, I am unable to sustain the conclusion arrived at by it. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that the power of remand ought not to be lightly exercised by the appellate court. It is only in exceptional cases where the judgment of the trial court is wholly unintelligible or incomprehensible the appellate court can remand the suit for a fresh trial. The fact that there are some defects and infirmities in the reasoning of the trial court is not a ground for the appellate court not to do its duty of disposing of the appeal on merits. The appellate court will be acting clearly without jurisdiction, if it simply and mechanically remands a suit to the trial court without applying its mind as to whether the judgment and the findings of the trial court are correct and if not whether it should be reversed or set aside. In other words, the appellate court should come to the clear conclusion that the findings of the trial court cannot be supported and must be set aside. In other words, the appellate court should come to the clear conclusion that the findings of the trial court cannot be supported and must be set aside. Ends of justice require that a party litigant who had incurred expenses and undergone all the ordeal and trouble of a protracted trial in the trial court should not be deprived of the benefit of the adjudication and obliged to fight the case, over again for some defect of mistake in the form of expense of the trial court. 5. In the present case, I find that the lower appellate court has not at all discussed the merits of the case on all issues before even thinking of ordering remand. Further, the reasons given by the lower appellate court in ordering remand are all unsustainable hence impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of the lower appellate court passed in A.S.No.56 of 1989, remanding the matters to the trial court is set aside and he is directed to restore the appeal (A.S.No.56 of 1989) on his file and dispose it of according to law. I do not wish to state anything further about the merits of the case or about the petitions filed for reception of documents. The lower appellate judge can dispose of the appeal on the materials available or if he thinks it necessary, he can take additional evidence under O.41, Rule 23 to 29, C.P.C. after giving sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the stay petition in C.M.P. No.196 of 1994 is closed. 7. Inasmuch as the appeal is of the year 1989, the appellate Judge is directed to dispose of the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.