JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, the defendant appellant (in short the defendant) under Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C. against the judgment dated 10.12.2007 of Additional District judge No. 4 Jaipur City Jaipur whereby the appeal filed by Gulab Chand Mittal, the plaintiff respondent No. 1 (in short 'the plaintiff') was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision allowing the application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. 2. The brief facts leading to filing present appeal arc that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order of dismissal from service consequent upon a departmental enquiry dated 25.8.1998 and the order of the appellate authority dated 12.7.2001 be declared to be void and illegal violative and he be reinstated in service. The plaintiff stated that he was appointed as LDC in the office of defendant but he was appointed as Sanganak in the month of January 1977 and was promoted as Statistical Assistant. The plaintiff was appointed as Law and Inquiry Officer in the month of September 1994. The defendant abolished the post of Law and Inquiry Officer and reverted back the plaintiff on the post of Statistical Officer on 4.8.1995 and the plaintiff challenged the said order by filing writ petition bearing No. 3967/1995 before this Court and the same was allowed by the decision dated 3.7.1997. The plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet dated 26.2.1997 issued under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and on the basis of the enquiry the plaintiff was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.8.1998. The plaintiff filed the suit on the various grounds alleging to be violative of principles of natural justice. The defendant filed written statement denying averments of malafides and violation of principles of natural justice. The trial Court framed as many as 10 issues and plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited various documents from Ex.l to Ex.28. The defendant got examined three witnesses and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A54. After hearing both the parties the trial Court vide its decision dated 22.1.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff having decided issues 1 to 6 and issue No. 9 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant whereas issues Nos. 7 and 8 were decided against the defendant and consequently the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. After hearing both the parties the trial Court vide its decision dated 22.1.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff having decided issues 1 to 6 and issue No. 9 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant whereas issues Nos. 7 and 8 were decided against the defendant and consequently the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 22.1.2007 initially filed review petition before the trial Court and thereafter filed appeal before the DJ Jaipur City. The said appeal was transferred to the Court of ADJ No. 4 Jaipur City. During pendency of the appeal the plaintiff filed two applications under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. placing 12 more documents received by the plaintiff during pendency of the appeal. The appellant filed detailed reply to the application and stated that the documents alleged to have been placed on record along with the application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. cannot be taken on record at this stage in view of provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 nor the documents are relevant. The appellate Court having heard the counsel for the parties on the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 allowed the applications and documents were taken on record and further remanded back the matter to the trial Court for fresh decision vide judgment dated 10.12.2007. Hence this appeal has been filed by the defendant.The learned counsel appearing for the defendant has contended that the appellate Court committed illegality in passing the impugned order remanding back the matter to the trial Court for fresh decision simply on the ground that the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 41, Rule 27 was allowed. He has further contended that the order passed by the appellate Court had remitted the matter for fresh decision without cither framing any additional issue or without recording any satisfaction/finding without any decision on the appeal on merit. He has further contended that the appellate Court has got no power to remand the matter for fresh decision in absence of specific reversal of a decree in the appeal that to without recording a finding that retrial is necessary. He has further contended that the appellate Court has got no power to remand the matter for fresh decision in absence of specific reversal of a decree in the appeal that to without recording a finding that retrial is necessary. The learned counsel for the defendant in support of his contention placed reliance on Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham of Bombay and others, AIR 1965 SC 1008 , Ramzan v. Alladin, III 1989(1) Current Civil Cases 460 , K.R. Mohan Reddy v. M/s. Net Work Inc. Rep. Tr. M.D., AIR 2008 SC 579 , P. Purushottam Reddy and another v. M/s. Pratap Steels Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 771 and Hameed (D) by LR's and others v. Kummottummal Kunhi PP. Amma (D) by LR's and others, 2006(2) WLC page 45 . 3. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended that the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court remanding the matter back to the trial Court for fresh decision and allowing the application of the plaintiff under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. and taking documents on record is just and proper and it is not without jurisdiction. The appellate Court has ample power to remand the matter. In support of his submission he placed reliance on Chote Lal v. Kalyan Prasad and others, AIR 1987 Raj. 75 , Wadi v. Amilal and others, 2002 WLC (SC) Civil 726 , Ramangouda & Anr. v. Basavarajappa Rajendra Gunj Raichur, AIR 1969 Mysore 111 and Kalaiselvi and others v. Govindasamy and another, 2000 AIHC 792 . 4. Admittedly in the instant matter the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court and during the course of pendency of the appeal before the appellate Court the plaintiff filed two applications for taking certain documents on record which were issued by the defendant during the pendency of the appeal and the appellate Court after considering this fact allowed the applications filed under Order 41, Rule 27 and documents were taken on record and simultaneously directed the trial Court to decide the suit afresh after hearing both the parties. This order of the appellate Court is not without jurisdiction. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the case. This order of the appellate Court is not without jurisdiction. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the case. The case of Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham of Bombay and others (supra), related to amendment to the plaint and remitting the suit for virtual retrial. The case of Ramzan v. Alladin (supra) related to allowing additional evidence by following the procedure of Order 41, Rule 28 C.P.C. Instant matter is not such a matter. The case of K.R. Mohan Reddy v. M/s. Net Work Inc. Rep. Tr. M.D. (supra) related to production of evidence. In Hameed v. Kummottummal Kunhi (supra) is related to fill in lacuna in the evidence and hence the Apex Court reversed the order of remand passed by the High Court. The instant is the matter in which the orders passed during the course of pendency of appeal by the defendant, and the appellate Court allowed the applications under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. and thereafter remanded the matter for afresh decision by the trial Court. 5. In the case of Wadi v. Amilal and others (supra), on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the Apex Court in paras 7, 8 and 9 held as under: "7. Now it is clear that Rule 27 deals with production of additional evidence in the appellate Court. The general principle incorporated in sub-rule (1) is that the parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence (oral or documentary) in the appellate Court to cure a lacuna or fill up a gap in a case. The exceptions to that principle are enumerated thereunder in clauses (a), (a) and (b). We are concerned here with clause (b) which is an enabling provision. It says that if the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, it may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined. The requirement or need is that of the appellate Court bearing in mind that the interest of justice is paramount. It says that if the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, it may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined. The requirement or need is that of the appellate Court bearing in mind that the interest of justice is paramount. If it feels that pronouncing a judgment in the absence of such evidence would result in a defective decision and to pronounce an effective judgment admission of such evidence is necessary, clause (b) enable it to adopt that course, invocation of clause (b) does not depend upon the vigilance or negligence of the parties for it is not meant for them. It is for the appellant to resort to it when on a consideration of material on record it feels that admission of additional evidence is necessary to pronounce a satisfactory judgment in the case. 8. In this case, on the question whether Rupa Ram died in 1951 or in 1960/61, the revenue appellate authority referred to a copy of mutation No. 49 and remanded the case to the original authority. The document in question would throw light on the germane issue and is, therefore, necessary for pronouncing judgment in the case on the question whether remand of the case was justified. In our view the board of revenue ought to have admitted the additional evidence under clause (b) aforementioned. It erred in declining to admit that document as additional evidence. 9. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the High Court confirming the orders of the learned Single Judge and of the board of revenue. Consequently, the order of the revenue appellate authority is restored. The case is remanded to the assistant collector for a fresh disposal of the suit in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the first respondent to lead further evidence in rebuttal, if he so desires." 6. The Madras High Court in Kalaiselvi and others v. Govindasamy and another (supra), held as under : "2. ... I am of the opinion that the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court cannot be faulted with. After all, procedure being the hand maid of justice, it cannot be put tentacles upon the discretion of the Court, to exercise that discretion in fit cases, where a substantial cause is made out. ... I am of the opinion that the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court cannot be faulted with. After all, procedure being the hand maid of justice, it cannot be put tentacles upon the discretion of the Court, to exercise that discretion in fit cases, where a substantial cause is made out. The lower appellate Court has held that there is a substantial cause within the meaning of Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. the documents and has allowed to be received as additional evidence in appeal. Inasmuch as the documents have been allowed to be received as additional evidence in appeal necessarily parties had to be given an opportunity to speak to the same and adduce evidence as to the same. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the lower appellate Court has remanded the matter back. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the points involved in the case, I am of the view that the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court cannot be held to be perverse or opposed to the principles of justice. Hence, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal." 7. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and considering the principles enunciated by the Apex Court and the Madras High Court, the order of the appellate Court allowing the applications of the plaintiff under Order 41, Rule 27 and remanding the matter to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh, cannot be said to be unjust and it has been passed in accordance with law. The order passed by the appellate Court is just and proper. The appeal filed by the defendant stands dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 1.3.2011. The trial Court is expected to decide the suit as early as possible. The interim order passed by this Court stands vacated.Appeal dismissed. *******