JUDGMENT : The appellants and respondents herein who are plaintiffs and defendants in the suit respectively, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiffs and defendants respectively. The plaintiffs filed the suit to declare the gift deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit OS No.129 of 2012 was dismissed by an order dated 18.11.2017 by the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet. 2. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree in O.S. No.129 of 2012 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, the Plaintiff filed an appeal vide A.S. No.4 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Rajampet. The Lower Appellate Court Judge by an order dated 06.07.2022 has set aside the judgment and decree in the suit and remanded back to the trial court. 3. Against the said remand order, the plaintiff has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the 1st appellate court failed to see the evidence on record which is sufficient to decide the matter by framing issue and remanding the matter to lead additional evidence and additional written statements. Leading the evidence may cause unnecessary delay in disposal of the suit. The other grounds raised by the plaintiff, which are disputed facts, which have already answered by the trial court. 4. It appears from the record that the plaintiff filed an amendment petition seeking relief of declaration of title apart from the relief to declare the gift deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is not binding upon them. As the suit has become comprehensive suit, the lower appellate court has remanded the matter to the trial court to give an opportunity to defendants to file additional written statement and after receiving the additional written statement to frame an additional issue basing on the pleadings and after settlement of additional issue, the court shall afford opportunity to both parties to lead evidence on such issue and give a finding on such issue. Holding that it is nothing but a fresh trial, therefore, suit is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal. 5. Holding that it is nothing but a fresh trial, therefore, suit is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal. 5. It is the contention of the plaintiff, the appellate court ought to have been undertaken the said process and ought to have been framed an issue and can be dealt with accordingly by the appellate court. Therefore, remanding the matter to the trial court is bad in law and relied on the following judgments. 6. The Supreme court while dealing the issue for remanding held that in Uttaradi Mutt v. Ragavendra Swamy Mutt, (2018) 10 SCC 484 when no case was made out to adduce additional evidence and in that event the entire case could not have been remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal after recoding fresh evidence as this case was not a case envisaged under order 41 Rule 23 of CPC when the lower appellate court cannot remand without any special reasons recorded as to why the party should be recorded before the trial court to re-decide the suit. 7. The Honble Supreme Court in H.P. Vedavyasachar vs. Shivashankara and Ors., 2009 (8) SCC 231 when High Court cannot clear up the trial court to dispose of the suit after taking evidence under order 41 Rule 27 in Kesava Reddy v. A. Visupaksha Reddy, 2016 (1) ALD 564 , the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that when an additional evidence produced for the first time before the appropriate court remanding of case to trial court for adjudication of suit a fresh after taking on recording of additional evidence is not permissible in view of order 41 Rule 28. In Saraswathi Devi Vs. Jujjurn Satyanarayana Raju, (1985) 2 ALT 478 the High court of Andhra Pradesh after following the judgment of the Honble Apex Court the power under Order 41 rule 23 is wide amplitude and of discretionary in nature but the discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily but with circumspection guided by sound and reasonable judicial principles capable of being corrected by the court of appeal. It should not be a substitute for laxity but be stemmed from the need to render substantial justice. It should not be a substitute for laxity but be stemmed from the need to render substantial justice. The order of remand should indicate sufficient and cogent reasons for remitting the matter for retrial and also held that it should be remembered that when retrial is ordered it amounts to allowing the party to fill in the lacuna crept at the trial with eyes wide open the basis of the pleadings and issues raised and the conclusion of the trial court and eventually held mere fact that the evidence on record is not sufficient to enable a court to come to different conclusion on an issue or a point is not a ground to remit the matter. In Ameer Basha v. K. Nagarathnamma, this Court after following the judgment of A. Ramaiah v. A. Pedda Sayanna Sailoo (died), (1989) 1 ALT 506 held that the appellate court should record a finding that a retrial is necessary upon reversing the decree and judgment of trial court on merits and also to meet the requirement of Order 41 Rule 23A CPC and also held that remanding the matter to the trial court cannot be in the nature by virtually reviving the respondent who have an adequate opportunity to lead evidence at the trial court and who had neglected to so is not justified. And in the similar lines, judgment of pronouncement in Purapabutchi Rama Rao v. Purapa Vimala Kumari and held that trial Court has not recorded any findings given to the effect that the judgment of the lower court is erroneous and liable to be set-a-side as per the procedure contemplated under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC. 8. The above said issues held in series of Judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely Shivakumar and ors. V. Sharanabasappa and others, AIR 2020 SC 3102 and Somakka (dead) by Lrs vs. K.P. basavaraj (dead) by Lrs., 2022 4 ALD 180 and in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law. The whole case is therein open for rehearing both on question of fact and law. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law. The whole case is therein open for rehearing both on question of fact and law. The judgment of the mind and record findings supported by reasons on all issues arising along with contentions put-forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arising at a different finding it would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it. 9. In Kollapudi Sriramulu v. K. Venkata Radha Krishna Murthy and another in the said judgment apart from the recording of reasons, the High Court has held that it is not open to the opposite party to enlarge in the appeal of such a scope of the dispute in the Lis by adducing evidence afresh. 10. In P. Purushottam Reddy v. Pratap Steels Limited, (2002) 2 SCC 686 when the plea was not taken in the written statement, the question of framing an issue did not therefore arise. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not permissible to remand the matter for question of framing an issue which was not raised in the written statement. In Jagarlamudi Rosaiah v. Daggubati Venkanna, 2008 (1) ALT 88 held in the following manner As can be seen from the findings recorded, it is not as though the evidence available on record is insufficient. As against the evidence of P.W.1. apart from D.W. 1. D.Ws. 2 and 3 also had been examined. No doubt, the evidence of D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 had been disbelieved by the Court of first instance. The Appellate Court could have appreciated this evidence and could have disposed of the matter. Even in a case where the Appellate Court otherwise was satisfied that one of the issues had not been framed by the Court of first instance, this could have been done in the light of the language of Order 41, Rule 24 of the Code. 11. In Vidya Sagar Cole (died) and others v. J. Balaji Singh and another, the High Court at Hyderabad held that remand cannot be directed to enable a party to fillup lacuna in his evidence in trial court. 11. In Vidya Sagar Cole (died) and others v. J. Balaji Singh and another, the High Court at Hyderabad held that remand cannot be directed to enable a party to fillup lacuna in his evidence in trial court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in U. Manjunath Rao v. U. Chandrashekar and another, 2017 (3) HLT 174 (SC) held that on perusal of the Rule for remand it is quite clear that the judgment of the appellate court has to state the reasons for the decision. While stating law the court has opined that expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a devise or camouflage to be adopted by the appellate court for shirking the duty cast on it. The same was observed in Santosh Hazari (supra) and in Ashwinkumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel, 1999 AIR (SC) 1125 High Court should not ordinarily remand a case under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC to the lower Court, merely because it considered that the reasoning of the lower court in some respects was wrong which leads to unnecessary delay and cause prejudice to the parties in the case. In Gottimukkala Ramachandrayya and others v. Kesari Chandramouli and others, 1961 ALT 195 Hon’ble High Court held that not only the appellate court be satisfied with the judgment and decree under appeal or unsustainable on the record available in the case and in law, but the appellate court must go further and must be satisfied that “the interest of justice” demand a remand and that would only be the proper course to take having regard to the entire circumstances of the case. In the similar circumstances Vadla Veerabhadrappa v. Challa Venkatappa, AIR 1961 AP 226 and in Satnam Singh and another v. Malook Singh and others, (2008) 11 SCC 798 held in the above said manner. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the plaintiffs are not aggrieved party who filed the suit to declare the gift deed executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the 2nd defendant is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the said suit was dismissed. Against the said judgment appeal was filed by the plaintiffs and the same was allowed and remanded back to the trial court allowing the application for amendment of the prayer by the plaintiffs. 13. Against the said judgment appeal was filed by the plaintiffs and the same was allowed and remanded back to the trial court allowing the application for amendment of the prayer by the plaintiffs. 13. Therefore, to give an opportunity to the defendants to file additional written statement but for allowing the amendment of the prayer. The lower appellate court has rightly remanded the matter and the plaintiffs are not aggrieved, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, if it is not possible to the first appellate court who have recorded evidence in the appellate court, having regard to the nature of factual controversy involved and keeping in view of the nature of additional evidence filed, which too needed to be proved in evidence, if it was not possible to retain the appeal to itself and invite finding only on additional evidence by taking recourse under Order 25 Rule 3 would enable the trial court to appreciate the entire evidence in its proper perspective, and if felt appropriate to remand the matter to the trial court. 14. The judgments relied by the appellants herein are not applicable to the present facts of the case. 15. Where the appellant herein has filed an application to amend the prayer and sought relief of declaration of title. Therefore, the lower appellate court has rightly remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and the judgment relied by the respondents herein in J. Balaji Singh case is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case and the appellant herein is not aggrieved party and his appeal was allowed and remanded back to the trial court on the application filed for amendment of the prayer for the aforesaid reasons the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the order of the lower appellate court is upheld and the trial court shall dispose of the suit as per the directions of the lower appellate court passed in A.S. No.4 of 2018 dated 06.07.2022. 16. With the above said direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stands closed.