JUDGMENT : V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree, dated 29.08.2008, made in A.S. No. 149 of 2006, on the file of Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 28.09.2005, made in O.S. No. 3015 of 1992, on the file of Second Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the suit in O.S. No. 3015 of 1992. 3. The appellants 1 to 6 and one Ganapathy are the defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 3015 of 1992. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by putting up any construction or making any encroachments and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the unauthorized constructions put up by them in the suit property. The fourth defendant died before filing of the appeal. The appellants 7 and 8 are his legal heirs. 4. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to the temple. The defendants in the suit, who are the owners of adjoining properties, encroached the suit property and put up construction. In such circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief stated above. 5. The defendants filed written statement and contended that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. The first defendant purchased the suit property for valuable consideration and was residing in the suit property along with her family members. She divided the suit property into three shares and settled the same on the defendants. The first defendant executed the settlement deed in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 and one Varusakshi on 30.06.1991 and they are in un-interrupted possession for a long time and prescribed their title by adverse possession also. They demolished the old structure and put up the new constructions. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They have put up a construction long back. The officials of the plaintiff filed suit only to blackmail the defendants. 6. The trial Court framed necessary issues. The parties let in oral and documentary evidence. They demolished the old structure and put up the new constructions. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They have put up a construction long back. The officials of the plaintiff filed suit only to blackmail the defendants. 6. The trial Court framed necessary issues. The parties let in oral and documentary evidence. Trial Court after considering the pleadings and evidence let in by the parties, held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property but dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants encroached the suit property. 7. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 149 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Court, Trichirappalli. The defendants filed cross objection challenging the findings of the trial Court that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. 8. In the first appeal, the plaintiff filed an interlocutory application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of surveyor. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent contended before the first appellate Court that in the suit on application filed by the plaintiff an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to measure the suit property with the help of surveyor. The Advocate Commissioner appointed did not inspect the suit property and therefore, the trial Court closed the application. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the plaintiff sought for remand of the suit to the trial Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants contended that the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property is not correct. The plaintiff is not having any title over the suit property and plaintiff has not produced any document of title. According to the defendants, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for long time. 10. The learned first appellate Judge considering the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants held in the interest of justice an Advocate Commissioner must be appointed to inspect the suit property with the help of surveyor. According to the defendants, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for long time. 10. The learned first appellate Judge considering the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants held in the interest of justice an Advocate Commissioner must be appointed to inspect the suit property with the help of surveyor. In view of the said finding, the learned first appellate Judge set aside the judgment of the trial Court and allowed the appeal as well as the cross objection and remanded the suit to the trial Court with a direction to appoint the Advocate Commissioner to survey the suit property with the help of surveyor to find out the encroachment, if any, and decide the suit afresh. 11. Against the said order of remand, the defendants have come out with the present appeal. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the first appellate Judge erred in remanding the matter to the trial Court for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and directed fresh disposal of the suit. The application filed by the respondent before the trial Court for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was dismissed as the respondent did not take steps to take the Advocate Commissioner to Inspect the suit property. The learned first appellate Judge has power to appoint Advocate Commissioner to Inspect the suit property with the help of surveyor. The first appellate Court ought to have decided the cross objection filed by the defendants on merits. The learned first appellate Judge has exceeded its power conferred on it under Civil Procedure Code and prayed for allowing the appeal. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the learned first appellate Judge after considering all the materials on record, judgment of the trial Court and the fact that the application filed by the respondent for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was closed without inspecting the suit property by the Advocate Commissioner, has rightly remanded the matter to the trial Court for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and for fresh disposal of the suit. There is no error in the said order of remand and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 15. There is no error in the said order of remand and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 15. From the materials on record, it is seen that the suit was remanded to the trial court in the interest of justice for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property with the help of surveyor to find out the encroachment, if any, in the suit property, by the defendants. The learned first appellate Judge has come to this conclusion based on the fact that the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial Court did not inspect the suit property with the help of surveyor to find out the encroachment and did not file his report and application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was closed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants the learned first appellate Judge for the purpose of appointing an Advocate Commissioner, cannot remand the suit to the trial court. It is well settled that the remand cannot be made in a routine manner and the appellate Court has discretion to remand the matter only in exceptional cases, where materials on record is not sufficient to decide the appeal on merits. In the present case, the respondent has filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner in the first appeal. The learned first appellate Judge has ample power to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in the first appeal itself. 16. Considering the above facts, the judgment of the first appellate Judge is set aside and the first appeal is remanded to the first appellate Court. The learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli is directed to take the said application on file and appoint an Advocate Commissioner directing him to inspect the suit property with the help of surveyor and file his report. After receipt of report from the Advocate Commissioner, the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to decide the issue on merits and in accordance with law in both the appeal as well as the cross-objection. It is open to the respondent to file an application for amendment to include the relief of declaration, if so advised. The parties are at liberty to let in further evidence, if any. 17. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. It is open to the respondent to file an application for amendment to include the relief of declaration, if so advised. The parties are at liberty to let in further evidence, if any. 17. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.