JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 104 read with Order ; Rule, 1(U) C.P.C. has been filed by the appellant-defendant (hereinafter the defendant') against the order dated 3.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional strict Judge No. 2 Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Lower Appellant Court' whereby the judgment and decree dated 3.12.2003 passed by the learned Addl.) Civil Judge (Senior Division), No. 6 Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Trial Court') was set aside and the matter remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh after granting an opportunity to the respondent plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff) for leading evidence on issues Nos. 1, 7, 8 and 10. 2. Counsel for the appellant-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') has submitted that the impugned Order dated 3.8.2007 is beyond the scope of Order Rules 23, 23A & 25 C.P.C. None of the grounds for remand were made out. The Trial Court had dismissed the plaintiffs suit for eviction in absence of any evidence to prove the ground of default against the defendant and in-fact on 17.10.2003 Counsel for the plaintiff had stated that the does not want to lead any evidence. It has been submitted that the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court for want of evidence conferred a valuable right on the defendant and that right mid not be casually taken by the Appellate Court without good cause within the four corners of law. Counsel for the defendant relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Sharma & Anr. v. Smt. Veera Saini, to contend that when the requisite evidence for adjudicating the dispute available before the Appellate Court it shall decide the appeal in-stead of setting aside a valid and well reasoned judgment and decree of the Trial Court ,id remanding the matter without good cause. v. Smt. Veera Saini, to contend that when the requisite evidence for adjudicating the dispute available before the Appellate Court it shall decide the appeal in-stead of setting aside a valid and well reasoned judgment and decree of the Trial Court ,id remanding the matter without good cause. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of B.B. Bhalla v. Rameshwar Kishore Badhwar, wherein this Court held that even where the defence f the defendant is struck off under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1950') it would be necessary for the landlord to establish the grounds for eviction agitated in the petition by adducing requisite evidence to prove that the defendant tenant was a defaulter and absent such evidence at the instance of the plaintiff a suit is liable to fail despite the defence of the defendant having struck off. Reference has; been made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Ramjanki v. Smt. Dhanni Bai & Ors., (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3192/2012) decided on 2.9.2013 wherein this Court held that subsequent to the amendment to the C.P.C. in id is only in 'exceptional cases' where the Court can exercise the power of remana hors Order 41 Rules 23 and 23-A C.P.C. for the reason that an un-warrant remand increases the life of a litigation and is not conducive to the administration of justice. Finally reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. v. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 687 to reiterate that unless the conditions detailed Order 41 Rules 23 and 23-A C.P.C. or otherwise Rule 25 C.P.C. were fulfiller remand should not be made casually and the Appellate Court should itself decided an appeal on merits even where an issue has not been framed by the Trial Court in the event of adequate evidence being on record. Great emphasis was finally placed on Para 12 of the said opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. Great emphasis was finally placed on Para 12 of the said opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. (supra) which for facility of reference is being reproduced as under:- "In the case before us it was not the grievance raised by any of the parties before the High Court that there was any failure on the part of the Trial Court in discharging its obligation of framing issues. Nobody complained of prejudice at the trial for want of any issue or a specific issue. It was nobody's case that any evidence, oral or documentary, was excluded or not allowed to be taken on record by the Trial Court. The very fact that the defendant-appellants have come up to this Court laying challenge to the order of remand shows that the appellants are not interested in remand and do not want any additional issue to be framed or to adduce any further evidence. Once of the pleas taken by the appellants in the memo of special leave petition is that the High Court had erred in remanding the matter back for fresh trial and the High Court had failed to appreciate that there was sufficient material on record to show absence of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform its part of the contract. On the other hand, after the passing of the impugned order of remand the plaintiff-respondent has also through his Counsel, filed a memo before the Trial Court on 18.2.2000 submitting that on the additional issues framed pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was already on record and the plaintiff would lead rebuttal evidence only if any evidence was adduced by the defendants. Thus the plaintiff is also not desirous of adducing any additional evidence on the issues." 3. Mr. Alok Garg, Counsel appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the back-ground facts of the case need consideration and not dry legalese. h submitted that the suit for eviction was filed in the year 1993. In-spite of service reply thereto was not filed for five years. The matter was put for plaintiff evidence. Mr. Alok Garg, Counsel appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the back-ground facts of the case need consideration and not dry legalese. h submitted that the suit for eviction was filed in the year 1993. In-spite of service reply thereto was not filed for five years. The matter was put for plaintiff evidence. On 22.4.1998 in the course of the plaintiffs examination-in-chief, an application was moved by the defendant to take his written statement on ream as the defendant in-spite of filing appearance before the Court, had not filed his written statement in-spite of several opportunities albeit but had not been mil ex-parte. Consequently, the Trial Court aborted the plaintiffs examination-in-chief mid-way recording that "the statements of the witnesses are deferred because the defendant filed the application to file written statement. Hence the statement: this witness may be kept on record for further action." (Emphasis supplied). Tit written statement was filed and issues were framed. The plaintiff stated that other than the ground of default other grounds mooned. 4. It is submitted that thereafter the defendant did not pay the provisional it as determined by the Trial Court under Section 13(4) of the Act of 1950. An Order under Section 13(5) of the Act of 1950 followed striking off the defendant's fence. It was submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances on 17.10.2003 the Counsel for the plaintiff appears to have misconstrued the obtaining law and instead of recommencing the plaintiffs evidence subsequent to the framing of issues following the filing of the written statement by the defendant, made a statement that no further evidence would be led. The inevitable consequence of plaintiff not leading evidence subsequent to the framing of issues was the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide his judgment and decree dated 3.12.2003 for reasons that no evidence in support of the eviction suit had been laid. 5. This entailed a Section 96 C.P.C. appeal by the plaintiff against the figment and decree dated 3.12.2003 passed by the Trial Court. Counsel emitted that it is the well establish practice of the Court that except in cases of gross negligence proceedings should not be terminated on technical grounds but stead concluded on merits. 5. This entailed a Section 96 C.P.C. appeal by the plaintiff against the figment and decree dated 3.12.2003 passed by the Trial Court. Counsel emitted that it is the well establish practice of the Court that except in cases of gross negligence proceedings should not be terminated on technical grounds but stead concluded on merits. He submitted that in the facts of the case, aside of ; misapprehension of law by the Counsel for the plaintiff, the defendant was responsible for the delay in the suit for failing to file written statement for a period of five years. He should not be allowed the benefit of a liberal approach qua himself and the plaintiff made to suffer law's harshness. Reference has been made to the judgment of this Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Prem Nath Motors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd., (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 99/1992) decided on 28.7.2011 wherein this Court held while hearing Section 96 C.P.C. appeal against a judgment and decree passed for failure of the defendant to lead evidence on over dozen occasions that it would "in the interest of justice" if the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in such circumstances were to be '.aside and the matter remanded to the Trial Court for giving one opportunity to defendants to lead evidence. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan & & Ors., 2009 WLC (Raj.) U.C. 595 for the me proposition where this Court finding that the suit was dismissed for failure the plaintiff adducing evidence despite several opportunities and nothing that delay was not attributable to the plaintiff alone, set aside the decree of dismissal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for adjudication on merits after one opportunity of leading evidence. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the defendant and the plaintiff. 7. In my considered opinion in the over-all facts of the case there is no scope interfere with the appeal. The Lower Court exercised its jurisdiction justly and fairly in the facts of the case where the plaintiff had failed to lead evidence not because of his lethargy or malafide but because of his Counsel's misapprehension of law that the examination-in-chief prior to the filing of the written statement in framing the issue of the suit would be read as evidence. This was occasioned by defendant's right to cross-examine having been closed with his defence in the suit having been struck off under Section 13(5) of the Act of 1950 for failure to pay visional rent. It is to be noted that a litigant is advised by his Counsel and he cannot be made to suffer for a concession in law by the Counsel. He always has the right to renege on a concession stating that he has been prejudiced made by Counsel's concession in law. 8. The facts of the case reveal that the defendant had not filed his written statement in the suit for a period of five years. The Trial Court was indulgent to the defendant in aborting the plaintiffs examination in chief and allowing the defendant to file his written statement after a period of five years. That indulgence of the Trial Court cannot work to the advantage of the defendant when the circumstances thus obtaining entailed misapprehension of law by the Counsel for the plaintiff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court even while detailing the law or. remand in the case of P. Purushottam Reddy & Anr. (supra) has left room for the exercise of the power of remand by the Appellate Court in "exceptional cases Such a case is presently made out from the over-all obtaining facts and circumstances. 9. I, therefore find no force in this Appeal dismissed. The Trial Court consequent to the remand by the Lower Appellate Court is directed to disposed the suit filed in the year 1993 with in a period of two months from the date of receipt a certified copy of this order.Appeal dismissed.