ORDER : This appeal is against an order of open remand passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Puri on 05.08.2014 in R.F.A. No. 29 of 2011 which arises out of T.S. No. 622/405 of 2001/1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri. 2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the Respondent is the defendant in the suit before the Trial Court. 3. The suit was decreed on contest declaring the plaintiffs right, title and interest over the suit land and confirming their possession and permanently injuncting the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Along with the appeal memo the defendant made a prayer under Order 41,- Rule 27, C.P.C. to admit some documents as additional evidence. Leaned appellate Court having heard the parties and making detail analysis as to how the application for additional evidence ought to be allowed passed the impugned order observing that rival claim of title in the suit land advanced by the parties can be reasonably answered and the lis can be properly adjudicated on assessment of the evidence on record along with the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the defendant. It was further observed that an open remand was necessary for fresh disposal of the suit in accordance with law. With such observation, the learned appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the case for fresh disposal. 4. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that such an open remand is not contemplated under Order 41 of C.P.C. and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned lower appellate Court must have made endeavour to dispose of the appeal on merit despite of its observation that in the interest of justice the additional evidence ought to be admitted. An open remand is contemplated under Order 41, Rule 23-A, C.P.C. Such, order of remand can be passed only when the decree is reversed in appeal and are-trial is considered necessary. The appellate Court cannot make order of remand without coming to a conclusion that the decision of the Trial, Court is wrong and that it is necessary to reverse or set aside the judgment and decree. The appellate Court cannot make order of remand without coming to a conclusion that the decision of the Trial, Court is wrong and that it is necessary to reverse or set aside the judgment and decree. Before going to pass an order under Order 41, Rule 23-A, C.P.C. the appellate Court has to consider the evidence on record and then arrive at a conclusion whether the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be supported by evidence on record. On perusal of the impugned order it is revealed that learned appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court but not on merit. It has not dealt with the findings of the learned trial Court to arrive at a conclusion that the trial Court's decision was wrong. Learned appellate Court has dealt with only one point, i.e., whether for just decision of the case the additional evidence sought to be produced by the defendant should be admitted into evidence or not. After recording its finding that the appellants ought to be permitted to adduce the additional evidence the learned appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh disposal giving parties due opportunity to adduce evidence. Such an order is not in accordance with Rule 23-A, Order 41, C.P.C. 5. If the learned lower appellate Court was of the considered view that production of additional evidence in appellate Court was necessary, then it could have allowed such evidence/document to be produced and, thereafter, it should have dealt with the matter in accordance with Order 41, Rule 28, C.P.C. according to which the appellate Court may either take such evidence or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, or any other subordinate Court, to take such evidence and send back the additional evidence so taken to the appellate Court. Had the appellate Court followed the provision contained in Rule 28, the open remand could have been avoided. 6. Had the appellate Court followed the provision contained in Rule 28, the open remand could have been avoided. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1973 Orissa 102 (Bira Mallik v. Chaitan Mallik) wherein it is held that where the appellate Court feels that in the interest of justice the case should be remanded to the trial Court for reconsideration after giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence it can do so under its inherent power under Section 151 of CPC This judgment was rendered prior to the insertion of Rule 23-A, Order 41, CPC by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Since there is a specific provision provided under the C.P.C. to the exigency, inherent power ought not to be exercised. That apart, in Nityananda Bharati v. Orissa Co-operative Insurance Society Limited, Cuttack, reported in 1974 Vol. XL 1053 it is observed that inherent power under Section 151 of C.P.C. is not to be availed for directing a remand. In Sambhu Prasad v. Kailash Chandra Das and others, reported in 76 (1993) CLT 517 (FB), this Court observed in para-29 of the judgment that after the amendment of the C.P.C. in 1976 by inserting Rule 23-A in Order 41, expressly conferring power of remand dehors the one mentioned in Rule 23, inherent power under Section 151, C.P.C. cannot be exercised to remand a case. 7. Since the impugned order of remand is not in accordance with the law laid down under the C.P.C., the same is liable to be set aside. . 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.02.2011 and 26.02.2011, respectively, are set aside. It is directed that the learned appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that while dealing with the appeal learned lower appellate Court may proceed either under Rule 25 or under Rule 23-A of Order 41 of C.P.C., if such recourse is considered to be necessary in the interest of justice. Appeal allowed.