JUDGMENT M. JAICHANDREN, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree, dated 2.7.2007, made in A.S. No. 122 of 2006, on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 31.1.2006, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabha- puram, in O.S. No. 106 of 2003. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 106 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The suit in O.S. No. 106 of 2003, had been filed by the appellant/plaintiff praying for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants and their subordinates from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, and from evicting the appellant/plaintiff from the schedule mentioned property. 3. It has been stated that the property shown in the schedule, forming part of the plaint, is within Churuload village. The adjacent property is a part of the Velimalai reserve forest. The boundaries between Velimalai Reserve Forest and Churuload village had already been fixed by a notification of the year, 1920, marked as Exhibit A-12. The appellant/plaintiff has stated that the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, dated 2.7.2007, made in A.S. No. 122 of 2006, is against law and the weight of evidence. Instead of confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 31.1.2006, made in O.S. No. 106 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, had erred in remanding the matter to the trial Court, without setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, on valid grounds. 4. Only if the appellate Court is not in a position to render an effective disposal, on the basis of the evidence available on record, the appellate Court could call for findings from the trial Court. Remand of a matter could be resorted to only if such findings could not be called for. If the parties could be permitted to file additional evidence, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Appellate Court should not remand the case. The Appellate Court ought not to have remanded the matter to the trial Court to fill up a lacuna or a gap in the evidence. If the parties could be permitted to file additional evidence, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Appellate Court should not remand the case. The Appellate Court ought not to have remanded the matter to the trial Court to fill up a lacuna or a gap in the evidence. If the unsuccessful parties are permitted to fill up the gaps in the evidence available, it would cause irreparable loss and grave prejudice to the successful parties. 5. It has been further stated that the learned Subordinate Judge had overlooked the fact that on the basis of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No. 486/1088 M.E., a notification had been issued by the Government in the year, 1920, under which the boundaries of Velimalai reserve forest were fixed. The said Notification had been marked, as Exhibit A-12. According to the said notification, the Velimalai reserve forest ends with the Velimalai village on the North. No portion of the Velimalai reserve forest occupies Churuload village. Admittedly, the property shown in the schedule to the plaint falls within Churuload village. 6. The appellant/plaintiff had purchased the property from Namasivayam Pillai, who was the erstwhile owner of the land. The various reasons given by the trial Court, while granting a decree in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, had not been considered by the first Appellate Court. No reason has been given by the first Appellate Court to remand the matter back to the trial Court. The admission of the Forest Ranger that no portion of the Velimalai reserve forest was within Churuload Village has been overlooked by the first Appellate Court. In such circumstances, the judgment and decree, dated 2.7.2007, made in A.S. No. 122 of 2006, by the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, is to be set aside, and a direction is to be issued directing the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, to dispose of the appeal, on merits. 7. Before the trial Court, three witnesses had been examined on behalf of the plaintiff, as P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-22 had been marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D.W.1 had been examined on behalf of the defendants and Exhibits B-1 to B-5 had been marked on their behalf. 8. 7. Before the trial Court, three witnesses had been examined on behalf of the plaintiff, as P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-22 had been marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D.W.1 had been examined on behalf of the defendants and Exhibits B-1 to B-5 had been marked on their behalf. 8. Considering the evidence available on record the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, decreed the suit, as prayed for, in O.S. No. 106 of 2003, in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, the defendants in the said suit, who are the respondents in the present appeal, had preferred an appeal, in A.S. No. 122 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, by his judgment and decree, dated 2.7.2007, had remanded the matter back to the trial Court with the following observations. "IMAGE In such circumstances, the appellant/plaintiff had preferred the present appeal before this Court, in C.M.A. (MD) No. 921 of 2008. 9. The point for determination in the present appeal is whether the first Appellate Court was right in remanding the case to the trial Court with the above mentioned observations? 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that the first Appellate Court ought not to have remanded the matter back to the trial Court to fill up the lacuna or the gaps in the evidence, as in the present case. The remand by the first Appellate Court is contrary to the various decisions of the Courts of law and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The observations made by the first Appellate Court, in its judgment and decree, dated 2.7.2007, made in A.S. No. 122 of 2006, is erroneous, contrary to law and the rulings of the Courts of law. 11.. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions. 11.1 In (2007) 5 MLJ 46 : (2007) 4 LW 298 it has been held that the Appellate Court cannot remand the matter to enable the parties to make good their lapses before the lower Court. 11.. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions. 11.1 In (2007) 5 MLJ 46 : (2007) 4 LW 298 it has been held that the Appellate Court cannot remand the matter to enable the parties to make good their lapses before the lower Court. 11.2 In (2007) 5 MLJ 786 : 2007 (5) CTC 600 , this Court had held that the judgments that are rendered on the available pleadings cannot be set aside, merely to afford indulgence to the litigant who had not been vigilant in producing evidence to support the case. In such cases, remanding the matter to the lower Court cannot be ordered. 12. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 551 : (1979) 4 SCC 163 and the decisions of this Court in (2007) 5 MLJ 961 : 2007 (2) TLNJ 142 (Civil)) and in (2007) 1 MLJ 725 : 2007 (1) TLNJ 271 (Civil), to state that it is not proper on the part of the first Appellate Court to remand the matter on the ground of appointing a Commissioner and for adducing additional evidence. 13. The learned counsel had also relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: (i) Kannu Naicker v. Kalaimani (100) LW. 922 (ii) (2008) 8 SCC 485 : (2008) 7 MLJ 695. 14. In the present case, the first Appellate Court, namely, the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, by its judgment and decree, dated 2.7.2007, made in A.S. No. 122 of 2006, had remanded the matter back to the trial Court, namely, the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, contrary to the law laid down by the decisions cited supra. Instead of remanding the matter back to the trial Court, the first Appellate Court, which is empowered to allow and appreciate additional evidence could have permitted the parties to adduce additional evidence, if it was found to be necessary, and to have decided the matter, on merits and in accordance with law. 15. Therefore, the first Appellate Court had erred in remanding the matter to the trial Court, namely, the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, with the observations mentioned above. 15. Therefore, the first Appellate Court had erred in remanding the matter to the trial Court, namely, the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, with the observations mentioned above. Therefore, the point raised for consideration as to whether the first Appellate Court was right in remanding the matter back to the trial Court, for fresh disposal, is answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed and the judgment and decree, of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, dated 2.7.2007, made in A.S. No. 122 of 2006, is set aside and the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, is directed to retain the appeal on his file, to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the parties concerned, to adduce the required evidence, as may be necessary for the disposal of the case, as directed by this Court. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed. Ordered accordingly.