JUDGMENT ( 1. ) ALL these appeals are arising out of O.S.Nos.261/2002, 296/2002, 268/2002, 2/2003 and 264/2002 filed by the respective respondents in all the appeals against the appellant herein. The parties are for the purpose of convenience referred to herein as per their rank in the suits. The suits are filed by different set of plaintiffs against the same defendant temple in respect of the land comprised in different survey numbers in the same ALLampatti Village, Virudhunagar. The suit reliefs sought are for declaring right, title and interest of the respective plaintiffs in respect of the suit land and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the same. ( 2. ) ALL the suits are resisted by the defendant temple on the same ground that the lands in questions are Inam lands belonging to the temple and the lands are given to various individuals for Iruvaram rights and after Inam Abolition, proceedings were initiated by the defendant before the Settlement Tahsildar and the Settlement Tahsildar confirmed the ownership and right of the temple to get ryotwari patta for the suit lands. With the pleadings, the parties went for trial and the trial court on the basis of the available records dismissed the suits on the ground that the respective plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in respect of the suit land and are not in possession and enjoyment of the same and the suit properties do belong to the defendant temple. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs in all the suits filed separate appeals and the lower appellate Court has by judgments and decrees under challenge set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and remanded all the suits to the trial Court for fresh disposal on the ground that the parties have not adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence to establish their respective claim. Hence, these appeals by the defendant temple before this Court. ( 3. ) THOUGH these appeals are filed under Order 41 Rule (1)u of C.P.C., common substantial question of law on which the appeals are to be decided is; "Whether the order of remand made by the lower appellate Court is against the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. and against the settled position of law regarding the scope of order of remand?" ( 4. ) THE grounds basing on which the suits are remanded back are not legally sustainable for the simple reason that the appeal being continuation of the suit proceedings, the lower appellate Court is vested with all powers as that of trial court for receiving additional documents and for taking oral evidence and for doing any other act which the trial Court is empowered to do and to ascertain the correctness of the findings rendered by the trial Court on the basis of the oral evidence and documentary evidence and additional evidence adduced before both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and omission to do so amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested with the lower appellate Court. THE perusal of the records reveals that the course adopted by the lower appellate Court in not following the procedure adopted under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. is erroneous, in the absence of any of the circumstances as enumerated in the catena of judgments of Apex Court and our High Court and the order of remand is hence unwarranted and deserves to be set aside. In the result, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in all the five appeals are set aside and the appeals are remanded back to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law after permitting the parties to produce additional oral and documentary evidence if any. As the suits are of the year 2002 and the appeals are of the year 2008, the first appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeals within four months form the date of receipt of copy of this order. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are accordingly disposed of. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.