JUDGMENT : 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Defendants 1 and 2 under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'), questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 11.01.2019, passed in Civil Appeal No. 23-A/2017, whereby the learned lower appellate Court, in exercise of the power enumerated under Order 41 Rule 28 of C.P.C, has remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to record the additional evidence pertaining to the report dated 16.10.2014 as submitted by Revenue Inspector within a period of 2 months. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and injunction with regard to the land bearing Khasra No.1665 admeasuring 0.10 hectare situated at Village Sankra, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari by submitting inter alia that in some of the portion of this land, his house is situated, while remaining portion is open, which is being used by him as a passage/path. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that adjacent to his land, the land bearing Khasra No.1664 admeasuring 0.02 hectare was purchased by defendant-Brijbhushan from one Jageshwar under the registered deed of sale dated 05.04.1994 and without his knowledge has succeeded to obtain the revenue papers mutated in his name and based upon it, has applied for the demarcation of it with the collusion of the Revenue Authorities on 25.05.2006 and on the basis of the Demarcation Report, he has filed an application before the Tahsildar, Nagri for reversion of possession of the land in question and tried to construct the wall over the alleged disputed passage. The plaintiff has, therefore, been compelled to institute the suit in the instant nature. 3. The defendants have contested the aforesaid claim and the trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has dismissed the suit by recording a finding that the plaintiff and the defendants are in possession of their own land and, the defendants have nowhere encroached upon the land of the plaintiff. 4. 3. The defendants have contested the aforesaid claim and the trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has dismissed the suit by recording a finding that the plaintiff and the defendants are in possession of their own land and, the defendants have nowhere encroached upon the land of the plaintiff. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal and the lower appellate Court vide order impugned dated 11.01.2019 has remanded the case to the concerned trial Court, while exercising its power under Order 41 Rule 28 of C.P.C. with a direction to record additional evidence in respect of the Demarcation Report dated 16.10.2014 as the same has not been proved by the plaintiff while producing evidence to this effect. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants 1 and 2/Appellants submits that the learned lower appellate Court has committed an illegality in remanding the matter with a direction for recording the additional evidence, particularly, when the sufficient evidence are available on record in order to pronounce the judgment, and therefore, the Court below ought to have decided the appeal on merits instead of remanding the matter as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 has supported the order impugned as passed by the Court below. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 1665 admeasuring 0.10 hectare, while the defendant-Brijbhushan is the owner of land bearing khasra no. 1664 admeasuring 0.02 hectare, which is adjacent to the plaintiff's land. The dispute pertaining to the alleged open land which according to the plaintiff belongs to him. In order to substantiate the said fact, the plaintiff has led the oral evidence and has also produced the documentary evidence, like the Demarcation Report as well as the Spot Inspection Report and the defendants, in order to rebut the same, have submitted the report of Revenue Inspector dated 05.07.2010 and after considering those materials, it was observed by the trial Court that since there are discrepancies in the demarcation reports submitted by the parties, therefore, it can not be said that the alleged passage is the part of plaintiff’s land and, in consequence dismissed the claim. 9. 9. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff, it was observed by the lower appellate Court that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff pertaining to the said report was not sufficient as the said report of the Revenue Inspector, dated 16.10.2014 has not been proved by him by producing evidence to this effect and, accordingly directed the concerned trial Court to record the additional evidence in this aspect. However, from perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties, coupled with the documentary evidence, it is evident that both the parties have not only produced their oral evidence, but have placed their reliance upon the documentary evidence, like the Demarcation Report as well as the Spot Inspection Report of the land in question. It, thus, appears that despite the sufficient evidence are placed on record, yet the matter has been remanded which appears to be passed in order to patch up the said lacuna. 10. The aforesaid approach of the learned appellate Court, thus, appears to be unreasonable, however, under such circumstances, the lower appellate Court should have decided the appeal on merits instead of remanding the matter. Be that as it may, while directing as such, it has not been observed by the lower appellate Court that the evidence led by the parties is insufficient, which is, however, sine qua non for remanding the matter. In absence of such a finding, the learned appellate court should have exercised its power as provided under Rule 24 of Order 41 of C.P.C. which reads as under:- “24. Where evidence on record sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally. - Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds.” 11. By virtue of the aforesaid provision, it is, thus, clear that if evidence adduced by the parties is sufficient to enable the appellate Court to pronounce the judgment, the appellate Court may after re-settling the issues, if required to be framed necessarily, decided the suit finally. By virtue of the aforesaid provision, it is, thus, clear that if evidence adduced by the parties is sufficient to enable the appellate Court to pronounce the judgment, the appellate Court may after re-settling the issues, if required to be framed necessarily, decided the suit finally. The rule, thus, enjoins on an appellate Court to determine the case finally where the evidence on record is sufficient for enabling it to pronounce a judgment and in the event of sufficiency of the evidence, the matter is required to be decided under this provision else the entire object in enacting this provision would be defeated. 12. In the instant matter, as observed herein above, in order to establish the claim with regard to the alleged passage, the plaintiff has not only led his oral evidence, but has placed his reliance upon the documentary evidence, like the Demarcation Reports as well as the Spot Inspection Reports and the defendants in rebuttal, have also submitted their evidence along with the documentary evidence, like the demarcation report of the concerned Revenue Inspector. It is, thus, evident from the record that both the parties have adduced their evidence sufficiently and the Court below while remanding the matter as such has not recorded a finding that the evidence adduced by the parties is not sufficient. What is infact observed by the lower appellate Court that the report dated 16.10.2014 of Revenue Inspector as submitted by the plaintiff on 04.03.2015 was not corroborated and/or proved by way of any evidence and by observing as such, the said direction was issued by the lower appellate Court in its order impugned dated 11.01.2019. The approach of the lower appellate Court, thus, vitiated its findings and cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law. 13. At this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Zarif Ahmad (Dead) through Legal Representatives and another Vs. Mohd. Farooq reported in (2015) 13 SCC 673 are to be seen where at paragraph 13 it has been held as under:- “13. No doubt, Section 107 CPC empowers the appellate court to remand a case, but it simultaneously empowers the appellate court to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. Rule 24 Order 41 CPC provides that where evidence on record is sufficient, the appellate court may determine the case finally. No doubt, Section 107 CPC empowers the appellate court to remand a case, but it simultaneously empowers the appellate court to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. Rule 24 Order 41 CPC provides that where evidence on record is sufficient, the appellate court may determine the case finally. It is not a healthy practice to remand a case to the trial court unless it is necessary to do so as it makes the parties to wait for the final decision of a case for the period which is avoidable. Only in rare situations, should a case be remanded e.g. when the trial court has disposed of a suit on a preliminary issue without recording evidence and giving its decision on the rest of the issues, but it is not so in the present case.” 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering further the oral as well as documentary evidence as placed by both the parties on record, it appears that the sufficient evidence is available on record and in the light of the principles laid down in the above mentioned judgment, the order impugned is liable to be and is hereby set aside. 15. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhamtari in Civil Appeal No. 23-A/2017 is hereby set aside and the matter is accordingly remitted to the lower appellate Court with a direction to decide the same on merits in accordance with law. The parties are directed to remain present before the District Judge, Dhamtari and/or the concerned Court on 18.08.2023. No order as to costs.