JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S. No.16870/2006 on the file of XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in the said suit dated 18.08.2018, he has preferred this appeal. 2. The brief relevant facts leading to this appeal are as under: 3. Plaintiff's father Shri. M.Venkatesh, was the owner of a land bearing Sy. No.29/1 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. According to the plaintiff, she succeeded and inherited the said land after demise of her father. It is averred that the Bengaluru Development Authority, Bengaluru, sought to acquire the said property. The BDA has reconveyed the said land vide Resolution No.484 dated 28.09.1984 as per endorsement dated 02.02.1985. According to the plaintiff, after formation of the layout in the said land, the BDA reconveyed site No.3C-301/1 to 3C-301/17, 3C-201 and 3C-203 i.e. 19 sites in favour of her father. 4. The suit schedule property involved in this case is site No.3C-301/8. It was reconveyed to the plaintiff under sale deed dated 16.08.2005 executed by BDA. Accordingly, plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property. The khata stands in her name. BBMP has allotted PID No.89-397-3C-301/8. It is alleged by the plaintiff that defendant has no right, title much less possession over the suit schedule property. 5. Initially, plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction and later sought for declaration in the suit schedule property and a direction to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. 6. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared through his Advocate and resisted by filing detailed written statement denying all averments. It was inter alia contended by the defendant that he is the owner of site No.2111/1 with khata No.3315 situated at Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now re-numbered as Khata No.33, III Cross, Kammanahalli Main Road, Kacharakanahalli, Ward No.89, measuring East to West 40 ft. and North to South 60 ft.That the defendant has purchased the said property under sale deed dated 14.02.1992 and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Based upon the pleadings, the learned Trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues: "ISSUES: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 7. Based upon the pleadings, the learned Trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues: "ISSUES: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference by the defendant? (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for? (4) What decree or order? ADDITIONAL ISSUES: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has taken forcible possession of the suit schedule property and thereby he has dispossessed her from the suit schedule property? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to the relief of vacant possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant? 8. To substantiate her case, plaintiff, examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26. Defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant and passed the impugned Judgment dismissing the prayer for declaration, but granted permanent injunction against the defendant. Plaintiff has challenged the said Judgment and Decree denying the relief of declaration on the following grounds: 9. That the plaintiff is sole owner of suit schedule property and the learned Trial Court has rejected the claim of the plaintiff relating to declaration. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree so passed by the learned Trial Court is opposed to the facts and provisions of law. P.W.1 -plaintiff has spoken before the Trial Court about her ownership of the suit schedule property. Learned Trial Court has not appreciated her evidence with regard to the sale deed executed by the BDA dated 16.08.2005 and the khata certificate issued by the BBMP. Based upon the said sale deed, she is the owner of site No.3C-301/8. The evidence of P.W.1 is not contradicted or controverted by the defendant by cross-examining P.W.1. Therefore, the observation made by the Trial Court at page Nos.14 to 16 of the impugned Judgments are not based upon the defence of the defendant. There is no proper appreciation of the evidence. The observation so made is contrary to the documentary evidence produced. 10. Therefore, the observation made by the Trial Court at page Nos.14 to 16 of the impugned Judgments are not based upon the defence of the defendant. There is no proper appreciation of the evidence. The observation so made is contrary to the documentary evidence produced. 10. It is further stated that the trial Court has observed in the course of judgment that, non production of original sale deed dated 16.08.2005 is a lapse on the part of the plaintiff. Now the plaintiff has filed I.A.1/2022 seeking leave of this Court to produce additional documentary evidence as provided under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. Therefore, amongst other grounds, it is prayed by the appellant -plaintiff to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment. 11. The records of this case reveal that, pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent has appeared through an Advocate. 12. Plaintiff has produced certified copy of the re-conveyance sale deed dated 16.08.2005 executed by the BDA in her favour. This application is supported by her affidavit stating that she has now obtained the said document and produced by way of additional evidence in this appeal. It is contended since the document has been recently obtained, the same may be accepted by allowing of I.A.No.1/2022. 13. Defendant has not filed any objections to this I.A. No.1/2022. 14. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both side parties, we have heard the arguments on main appeal and meticulously perused the records. 15. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both side has decreed the suit as under: "The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part. (1) The defendant, his agents, servants and anybody claiming under him, etc., are hereby restrained by way of Permanent Injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. (2) The prayer of the plaintiff for declaration to declare her as the absolute owner of the suit that she is entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant are hereby dismissed. (3) No order as to costs." 16. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff that, the Trial Court has not permitted the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff. Even the defendant has also not led any evidence. (3) No order as to costs." 16. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff that, the Trial Court has not permitted the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff. Even the defendant has also not led any evidence. The only observation of the learned Trial Court is that 'there is a lapse on the part of the plaintiff in not producing the re-conveyance deed issued by the BDA in favour of the plaintiff'. By observing so, the claim of the plaintiff seeking declaration has been dismissed by the Trial Court. 17. As against this submission, learned Advocate for respondent submits that, the respondent also be given an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 and defendant also be permitted to lead evidence. 18. It is submitted by both the Advocates that, if P.W.1 is cross-examined and defendant is permitted to lead evidence, there will be proper and effective adjudication of the lis between the plaintiff and defendant. Both the Advocates submit that, if the appeal is allowed and suit is remanded to Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and produce document as per I.A.1/2022, it would meet ends of justice. 19. So far as remand of the case by the Appellate Court is concerned, this provision is governed by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 23 CPC. So far as scope of Order XLI Rule 23 of CPC is concerned, the scope is very much limited. It is only in exceptional cases where the Court may exercise the power of remand de-hors the Rules of 23 and 23-A of CPC. To wit, the superior Court, if it finds that the Judgment under appeal has not disposed of the case satisfactorily in the manner required by Order 20 Rule 3 or Order 11 Rule 31 and hence, it is no judgment in the eye of law, it may set aside the same and send the matter back for re-writing the Judgment so as to protect valuable rights of the parties. So to say, Appellate Court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule 23-A or Rule 25 of CPC. So to say, Appellate Court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule 23-A or Rule 25 of CPC. It is also laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that an unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an underserved lease of life and, therefore, must be avoided. 20. The factual features that have been stated by the appellant in the appeal memo and conceded by the respondent -defendant in this appeal show that no proper opportunity given to the defendant to cross-examine P.W.1. So also, no opportunity was given to the defendant to lead evidence. 21. In this appeal, as stated supra, the expression so stated in Order XLI Rule 23 that "interests of justice" has full application. But however Order XLI Rules 23 to 27 do not widen the power of the appellate Court to remand the suit, in the sense that, irrespective of the fact whether it comes to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court are liable to be set aside or not, if the appellate Court is of the opinion that "interests of justice" require that, there should be a fresh trial, it can remand the suit for fresh disposal. 22. The provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are not meant to enable either party to fill up the gaps in the evidence or to better their case in the appellate Court when once they find that the evidence which they have chosen to let in the Trial Court is found by the appellate Court to be insufficient to justify their case. 23. Now by way of filing I.A.1/2022, the plaintiff appellant wants to produce additional document. 24. It is true that, to order re-trial of a case is a serious matter and may mean considerable waste of public time. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional case as, for example, where there had been no real trial of the dispute and no complete or effectual adjudication of the proceeding and the party complaining has suffered material prejudice on that account. If this analogy is applied to the present facts of the case, P.W.1 is not cross examined by defendant. Even defendant/respondent also has not led evidence to substantiate his pleadings. Defendant prays that, he also be permitted to cross-examine P.W.1 and lead evidence. If this analogy is applied to the present facts of the case, P.W.1 is not cross examined by defendant. Even defendant/respondent also has not led evidence to substantiate his pleadings. Defendant prays that, he also be permitted to cross-examine P.W.1 and lead evidence. That means, on a reading of the Judgment and Decree so passed by the Trial Court, there has been no real trial of the dispute and there was no complete or effectual adjudication of the proceedings before the Trial Court. Now, the appellant is complaining that, because of declining of the relief of declaration, she has suffered with a material prejudice because of not giving an opportunity to the plaintiff. Therefore Rule 23 contemplates a position in which the Appellate Court does not retain seisin of the case. 25. In view of these factual features, it can be stated that the jurisdiction of Appellate Court to remand a case for fresh disposal arises only if the court comes to the conclusion that the adjudication of the Trial Court is erroneous and the Judgment is liable to be set aside or reversed. Unless there are compelling reasons, a remand cannot be made only for enabling a party to adduce more evidence. The Trial Court has not provided opportunity to defendant to cross-examine P.W.1. There was no evidence led by the defendant. Plaintiff wants to substantiate her case by producing additional evidence. Therefore, as stated supra, as the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration in respect of suit schedule property. The very title and possession of the suit schedule property is challenged by the defendant by filing written statement. Therefore, opportunity is to be given to both the parties to lead proper evidence. 26. On perusal of the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, it shows that though its findings contains on all material questions of law and facts but it is defective. It did not discuss separately under the headings of individual issues, the evidence bearing on each issue and it recorded its findings on several issues without giving any summary of the evidence relating to various issues. Trial Court says no title deed is produced by the plaintiff and hence, declaratory relief is denied. It did not discuss separately under the headings of individual issues, the evidence bearing on each issue and it recorded its findings on several issues without giving any summary of the evidence relating to various issues. Trial Court says no title deed is produced by the plaintiff and hence, declaratory relief is denied. Thus, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court without giving proper findings on all issues amounts to contravening the provisions of Order XX Rule 5 of CPC and without discussing the evidence and without affording opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 and giving opportunity to defendant to lead evidence is improper and has to be set aside. 27. The Appellate Court cannot decide the matter on the basis of incomplete evidence. However, it can determine the case finally if evidence on record is sufficient to pronounce Judgment. 28. Resultantly, in view of our aforementioned reasons and discussions therein, appeal so filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed and the matter is to be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 29. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC is allowed. Judgment and Decree to the extent of refusing to grant declaration in respect of suit schedule property is set aside. Consequently, O.S. No.16870/2006 is remanded to the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, for disposal in accordance with law with a direction to give opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence. I.A.No.1/2022 is allowed and document produced along with the I.A. No.1/2022 is received on record subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Return the records to the Trial Court along with the document now produced under I.A.1/2022, along with a copy of this Judgment, forthwith. As the suit is of the year 2006, the learned Trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously with all its promptitude. Under the circumstances, no order as to costs.