Judgment : 1. This appeal is by the defendant in O.S.No.179 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The said suit, filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction, was dismissed by the trial Court under its judgment and decree dated 23.07.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal, being A.S.No.24 of 2012, before the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The lower appellate Court has considered the appeal and on finding that the trial Court has not discussed Exs.A1, A2, A7, A12 and A13 and the registered gift deed dated 11.05.1968, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was remitted under judgment dated 24.12.2012. Questioning the order of remand, this appeal is preferred by the defendant. 2. Heard Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Mr. S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. 3. As mentioned above, the order of remand by the lower appellate Court is only on the ground that there is no discussion by the trial Court on the aforementioned documents. During the hearing of this appeal, I have seen the judgment of the trial Court and the trial Court has referred to Exs.A1 and A2 in para 36 and Exs.A7 to A17 were noticed in para 54 and further findings are found paras 59 and 60. While it is true that the trial rejected Exs.A1 to A17 for the reasons given by it, it cannot be said that there is no consideration of the said evidence by the trial Court. If the consideration by the trial Court is not approved by the lower appellate Court, since the lower appellate Court has got same powers as that of the trial Court, it is open for the lower appellate Court to deal with the questions of law and fact and come to its own conclusions. 4. The power of remand is regulated under the Civil Procedure Code by Order XLI Rules 23, 23-A and 25. The present order of remand made by the lower appellate Court, however, does not fall under any of the provisions aforesaid. The Supreme Court in P. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY v. PRATAP STEELS (2002) 2 SCC 686 )held at para 9 as follows: “9. The next question to be examined is the legality and propriety of the order of remand made by the High Court. The Supreme Court in P. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY v. PRATAP STEELS (2002) 2 SCC 686 )held at para 9 as follows: “9. The next question to be examined is the legality and propriety of the order of remand made by the High Court. Prior to the insertion of Rule 23A in Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure by CPC Amendment Act 1976, there were only two provisions contemplating remand by a court of appeal in Order 41 of CPC. Rule 23 applies when the trial court disposes of the entire suit by recording its findings on a preliminary issue without deciding other issues and the finding on preliminary issue is reversed in appeal. Rule 25 applies when the appellate court notices an omission on the part of the trial court to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact which in the opinion of the appellate court was essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits. However, the remand contemplated by Rule 25 is a limited remand in as much as the subordinate court can try only such issues as are referred to it for trial and having done so the evidence recorded together with findings and reasons therefore of the trial court, are required to be returned to the appellate court. However, still it was a settled position of law before 1976 Amendment that the court, in an appropriate case could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to order a remand it such a remand was considered pre-eminently necessary ex debito justitiae, though not covered by any specific provision of Order 11 of the CPC. In cases where additional evidence is required to be taken in the event of any one of the clause of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 being attracted such additional evidence oral or documentary, is allowed to be produced either before the appellate court itself or by directing any court subordinate to the appellate court to receive such evidence and send it to the appellate court. In 1976, Rule 23A has been inserted in Order 41 which provides for a remand by an appellate court hearing an appeal against a decree if (i) the trial court disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and (ii) the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary. In 1976, Rule 23A has been inserted in Order 41 which provides for a remand by an appellate court hearing an appeal against a decree if (i) the trial court disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and (ii) the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary. On twin conditions being satisfied, the appellate court can exercise the same power of remand under Rule 23A as it is under Rule 23. After the amendment all the cases of wholesale remand are covered by Rule 23 and 23A. In view of the express provisions of these rules, the High Court cannot have recourse to its inherent powers to make a remand because as held in Mahendrav. Sushila AIR 1965 SC 365, it is well settled that inherent powers can be availed of ex debito justitiae only in the absence of express provisions in the Code. It is only in exceptional cases where the court may now exercise the power of remand de hors the Rules 23 and 23A. To wit the superior court, if it finds that the judgment under appeal has not disposed of the case satisfactorily in the manner required by Order 20 Rule 3 or Order 11 Rule 31 of the CPC and hence it is no judgment in the eye of law, it may set aside the same and send the matter back for re-writing the judgment so as to protect valuable rights of the parties. An appellate court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule 23A or Rule 25 of the CPC. An unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life and, therefore must be avoided.” It is clear from the above that the power of remand to be exercised by the lower appellate Court must be in conformity with any of the said provisions and a remand is not to be ordered if the case does not fall under any of the aforesaid provisions. It is not in dispute that all the exhibited documents, which are on record, before the trial Court are also before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate court has the same power, on questions of law and fact, as that of a trial Court. It is not in dispute that all the exhibited documents, which are on record, before the trial Court are also before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate court has the same power, on questions of law and fact, as that of a trial Court. Hence, the lower appellate Court itself can appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and come to its own conclusions. 5. In the present case, therefore, the lower appellate Court can as well appreciate the documents i.e. Exs.A1 to A17 even when the said documents were rejected by the trial Court by giving its own reasons, the lower appellate Court is free to come its own conclusions on the said documents. Fresh additional evidence, which is produced before the lower appellate Court is concerned, the same is only in the nature of the order of the Joint Collector under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, which is a superior Court’s order over Ex.B7. Since that document is not in controversy between the parties, the lower appellate Court may treat the said document as additional evidence on its own merits and consider the same in the appeal along with the oral and documentary evidence already available on record. 6. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned order of remand of the lower appellate Court directing remand of the suit for fresh consideration is set aside. The appeal is restored to the file of the lower appellate Court, which shall deal with the appeal, as a first appellate Court and determine the appeal afresh preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.