Short Note By this appeal the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1995 in Civil Appeal No. 29A/1991 by District Judge, Satna has been challenged. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and possession. The trial Court decreed the suit and directed that possession of half the portion of the suit properly be delivered to the plaintiffs-appellants. During the pendency of the appeal, application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC was filed and it was prayed that instead of the relief of declaration, relief of partition and possession be granted. The defendant-respondent No. 1 also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC by which agreement and partition were sought to be produced and another application was filed by the defendant-respondent No. 1 for permitting secondary evidence to be led in regard to the said documents. The learned lower appellate Court allowed the said applications under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amendment as well as under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC. It further directed that the application for leading secondary evidence under section 65 of the Evidence Act shall be decided by the trial Court. It was further observed that since the evidence will have to be recorded and as prayed for relief has been changed, therefore, the suit deserves to be remanded under Order 41 Rule 23A of the CPC. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the remand was not justified. However, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 defendant supported the impugned-judgment. It appears that the appellants-plaintiffs initially did not pray for the relief of partition in the suit filed by them. The prayer as above has been made and allowed by the trial Court and the plaint has been permitted to be amended. The defendant-respondent No. 1, therefore, has a right to amend his written statement also. Moreover, the defendant-respondent No. 1 has also produced certain documents alleged to be partition-deed and agreement. He has prayed that evidence be recorded thereon. In view of the above, the order directing remand of the case cannot be faulted with. This appeal, therefore, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.