M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned advocates for both the contesting parties as also the learned government Advocate on merits. ( 2 ) THE short point involved in this appeal and one which is of some consequence particularly in the litigation relating to the land reforms, where the cases have been shuttling between the tribunal and the high court with continuous regularity without being disposed off at either of the two ends, is whether the grounds on which the remands are ordered would require some level of scrutiny. The present case is a classic instance where on the previous occasion the high court granted a remand on the application of the claimant who had contended that he desires to lead additional evidence. Without going into the question as to why the evidence was not lead earlier and what was the nature of the evidence, the high court accepted the submission of the learned counsel and remanded the case. It is quite significant for us to note that despite this solitary ground having been highlighted before the high court, when the proceedings went back to the tribunal that the petitioner did not lead any additional evidence, oral or documentary, and only written arguments were filed and a fresh order was passed which was once again challenged before the high court and, once again the same plea was taken up this time, with the added variation that despite the remand on the ground that additional evidence was to be led by the parties who desire to produce it for the purposes of making out their case that the tribunal was in error in not having ensured this. In the circumstances of the present proceedings where the petitioner had asked for remand on the ground that additional evidence was to be led and was allowed to lead that evidence and if the petitioner then chose not to do so, there is absolutely no ground or justification on which the tribunal can be blamed for this. It is very clear to us that this was a hollow plea in order to dilate the litigation. It is very clear to us that this was a hollow plea in order to dilate the litigation. ( 3 ) ON the present occasion once again a remand has been secured on the ground that the petitioner desires to lead additional evidence and the argument advanced is that despite the remand the tribunal had not recorded the additional evidence, the implication being that as pointed out by us earlier, it is the tribunal that is at fault. On this ground the learned single judge has straightaway remanded the proceedings. It is this order that is challenged before us. We would like to reiterate that normally, if in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned single judge holds that a remand is absolutely essential, that an appeal court would not, under normal circumstances question the validity of that order or interfere with it. We need, however to prefix this observation with a clarification that where the proceedings have virtually been mechanically disposed off and the opposite party who is at the receiving end has come up before the appeal court a situation arises to re-examine the justification of the remand and that too in an old litigation. The justification for a remand must be abundantly spelt out and supported by cogent grounds and material and must be virtually unavoidable. In other words, it must be the exception and not the rule. ( 4 ) IN the present case the appellant's counsel as also the learned government Advocate has pointed out to us that the revenue record does not support the petitioner and that the solitary evidence on which the petitioner based his case is the one document, namely the "karukarar". The petitioner's contention was that he has an oral agreement of tenancy between the landlady and himself. Consequently, the authenticity of this document was challenged and it was sent to the handwriting expert and there is on record an opinion to the effect that the document or rather the signature is fabricated. Even if that evidence is opinion evidence, the fact remains that there is a serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of that document and it could never form the basis of granting of an occupancy right. Even if that evidence is opinion evidence, the fact remains that there is a serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of that document and it could never form the basis of granting of an occupancy right. The submission canvassed before us is that the petitioner had one opportunity on the last occasion to lead additional evidence and he did not do so and is therefore disqualified from asking the high court for a fresh remand. ( 5 ) IN order to justify the genuineness of the plea, after hearing the learned advocates, we passed a speaking order wherein we had askedthe respondent to justify in the first instance as to why the so-called additional evidence had not been presented at an earlier point of time particularly after the last remand. Secondly, in order to check the bona fides of the plea, we had directed the respondent to file an affidavit setting out a summary of the nature of the evidence which the respondent proposed to lead or produce and thirdly, to indicate briefly in order to satisfy this court, whether this particular evidence for the recording of which the case was remanded to the land tribunal is essential for arriving at a decision. No affidavit has been filed in answer to the court's queries and the respondent has not been able to satisfy any of the aforesaid conditions. It is in this background that we are constrained to observe that there is absolutely no justification for the plea put forward before the learned single judge that the remand is justified for the purposes of recording additional evidence. We need to also clarify that permission to lead additional evidence at a belated stage is an exceptional situation which the court would not under normal circumstances permit unless there are very valid and cogent grounds which conform to the well-settled legal norms. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid position both factual and legal, this is one of the cases where we find the order of remand was totally and completely unwarranted. The order passed by the learned single judge is accordingly set aside. The appeal succeeds and stands disposed off. No order as to costs. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid position both factual and legal, this is one of the cases where we find the order of remand was totally and completely unwarranted. The order passed by the learned single judge is accordingly set aside. The appeal succeeds and stands disposed off. No order as to costs. ( 7 ) AN oral application is made by the respondents learned Advocate stating that there are standing crops in the disputed land and the re-quest is that the respondents may be permitted to harvest the same. There is nothing on record for us to ascertain whether the statement made is correct. Consequently, we decline to issue any directions. If any directions are necessary or justified, it is open to the respondents to move the tribunal for this purpose. The tribunal shall then ascertain the factual position and if the situation requires will issue appropriate directions after notice to the opposite parties. --- *** --- .