JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kota in Misc. Appeal No. 21/2000 by which order the case has been remanded back to the learned trial court to decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC afresh. 2. The plaintiff petitioner had filed a civil suit in the trial court seeking permanent injunction in regard to the land i.e. Khasra No. 499 (0.41 Htr.) claiming possession and ownership against the private defendants and also the UIT. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed seeking temporary injunction in regard to the land in dispute. The restraint order was being sought in regard to the construction on the land in question. The trial court after hearing both the parties and on the basis of the pleadings had passed an order of status quo to be maintained on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC on the land in dispute vide order dated 9.5.2000. It was the case of the plaintiff that Khasra No. 499 was recorded in the khatedari of the plaintiff and the land of Khasra No. 506 was recorded in the ownership of the UIT, which was abadi land. Even or Commissioner was appointed to submit the report. Being aggrieved against the order dated 9.5.2000 passed by the trial court, the respondent defendant had filed a CMA No. 21/2000 before the Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota. 3. The appeal was decided vide impugned order dated 11.12.2000 and order of the trial court was set aside with the direction to the trial court to summon the detailed report from the Settlement Department with regard to the disputed land and further had directed the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction afresh by considering the rectified 2 sale-deeds dated 14.6.1966 and 30.3.1971. Feeling aggrieved against the said order of remand, the present appeal has been preferred with the submission that if any further evidence was required as was being considered by the First Appellate Court, that the First Appellate Court should itself have decided the appeal filed on the application of temporary injunction and in any case even if the case was to be remanded for considering any fresh evidence which was still to be collected, in such situation the order of the status quo as already passed by the trial court was not to be set aside. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwin Kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel and others, (1999) 3 SCC 161 wherein it was held that the appellant court should not ordinarily remand a case merely because it considers the reasoning of the lower court to be wrong as remand of a case causes delay and prejudice to involved parties and if material is available before it, High Court should exercise its own discretion and decide the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent relies on a case of N.R. Dongre and others v. Whirlpool Corporation and another, (1996) 5 SCC 714 on the point that the interference in appeal should be called only if it is held that the conclusion so reached in favour of the plaintiff is contrary to the settled principles of grant of temporary injunction or is arbitrary or perverse. 6. In the present case, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwin Kumar K. Patel (supra) are more relevant. The plaintiff had obtained status quo order in regard to construction which was appealed against before the first appellate court. The appellate court was of the opinion that certain more evidence is required and had given a direction for such evidence from the concerned Government office. In such situation the appellate court if at all it was necessary to obtain any further evidence ought to have considered the evidence itself and decided the matter instead of setting aside the order of the trial court and remanding for a fresh decision on the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. In such situation the appellate court if at all it was necessary to obtain any further evidence ought to have considered the evidence itself and decided the matter instead of setting aside the order of the trial court and remanding for a fresh decision on the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. It would not only cause prejudice, but also delay as the trial court under the directions would pass a fresh order which would again be appealed against and this circle will taken place once again. 7. In the fitness of circumstances and as the law laid down, the first appellate court had erred in law in giving the direction to the trial court to decide the application of interim injunction once again afresh in view of certain documents coming to light for the first time by the first appellate court. 8. The first appellate court could have decided the application itself instead of remanding the case for fresh decision on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in view of certain fresh documents. The impugned order cannot be sustained in law and requires to be set aside and he revision petition is to be allowed with the direction that the appeal ending before the trial court shall be decided by the first appellant court half with or without additional documents which were ordered to be considered by the trial court and in the mean time the status quo order already passed by the trial court shall continue till the appeal itself is decided. The record shall be sent back to the first appellate court immediately on receipt of a certified copy of the this order. 9. The revision petition is allowed as indicated above.Revision Allowed - Appellate Court directed to Ddcide Appeal itself - Order of status quo maintained. *******