JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is decided finally at the admission stage. 2. The present appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u) of CPC is directed against the order dated 04/10/2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Regular First Appeal No.20 of 2012, whereby the Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 30/01/2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.215 of 2000 and has remanded the case to the Trial Court, for deciding the suit afresh, after taking on record the documents produced by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. 3. In the instant case, it appears that the original plaintiff Rajendra Prasad, predecessor-in-title of the respondents, had filed the suit for eviction of the appellant-defendant from the suit shop on the ground of bonafide requirement. The said suit was resisted by the appellant-defendant by filing the written statement. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, had dismissed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 30/01/2010 against which the respondents had filed the appeal before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents had sought to produce the certain documents under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC vide applications dated 08/02/2011 and 17/08/2011. The Appellate Court vide the impugned order has allowed the said applications and remanded the case to the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Placing heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. v. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 686 & decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Kiran Kumari (Mrs.) & Ors. v. Hanumant Singh & Ors., 2011 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 539 : 2011(2) CCC 535 (Raj.), the learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.K. Mehrishi submitted that the Appellate Court had passed the impugned order without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Appellate Court could not have set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, while permitting additional evidence to be taken on record under Order 41, Rule 27 or Rule 28 of CPC. 5. The learned counsel Mr. K.K. Mehrishi submitted that the Appellate Court had passed the impugned order without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Appellate Court could not have set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, while permitting additional evidence to be taken on record under Order 41, Rule 27 or Rule 28 of CPC. 5. The learned counsel Mr. R.P. Vijay for the respondents has also conceded to the extent that the Appellate Court should not have remanded the case to the Trial Court or set aside the judgment and decree passed in the suit, however, he has further submitted that the impugned order be modified and confirmed to the extent of granting the applications of the respondents filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court, in the light of the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 27 and Rule 28 CPC, it clearly transpires that the Appellate Court has passed the impugned order in utter disregard of the provisions of law and also the legal position settled by the Apex Court and by this Court in various judgments. From the bare reading of the Rule 27 of Rule XLI, it transpires that the additional evidence could be produced in the appeal, with the permission of the Appellate Court on any of the grounds contained in (a), (aa) or (b) of Rule 27. It further appears that when such additional evidence is permitted to be produced by the Appellate Court, the Court has to record the reasons for its admission. Further as per Rule 28 Order 41, wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the Appellate Court has to either take the evidence itself, or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, or any other subordinate court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the Appellate Court. Hence, while exercising the powers under Rule 27 and Rule 28 Order 41, the Appellate Court could neither set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court nor remand the case to the Trial Court for deciding the same afresh in the light of the additional evidence, which the Appellate Court had permitted to be produced. 7. Hence, while exercising the powers under Rule 27 and Rule 28 Order 41, the Appellate Court could neither set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court nor remand the case to the Trial Court for deciding the same afresh in the light of the additional evidence, which the Appellate Court had permitted to be produced. 7. In the instant case, the Appellate Court in utter disregard of the said provisions has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the suit afresh, after permitting the respondents-plaintiffs to amend the plaint and permitting the defendant to lead the evidence in rebuttal, if they desire to do so. Such an order passed by the Appellate Court being ex-facie illegal, the same deserves to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.K. Mehrishi has rightly relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. v. Pratap Steels Ltd.(supra), wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with the scope of remand by the Appellate Court, has deprecated the practice of the Appellate Court passing an unwarranted order of remand, giving undeserved lease of life to the litigation. 8. In that view of the matter, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgment and decree dated 4/10/2013 passed by the Appellate Court is set aside, and the Appellate Court is directed to decide the applications of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 41, Rule 27 strictly in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the said applications. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.