ORDER : V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.5 of 2024, in O.S.No.1065 of 1992, dated 07.11.2024. 2. The civil revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff one M.Natarajan. He filed O.S.No.1065 of 1992, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property. 3. It is the case of the deceased original plaintiff that the suit property belongs to a Temple, namely, the 3 rd defendant. He pleaded that the Temple had let out the property to him and that he has been continuing to pay the rent to the Temple and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. On 23.09.1991, a complaint was lodged by the 1 st defendant with the 2 nd defendant against the plaintiff. Since his possession was sought to be interfered with, he presented the suit. 4. The 1 st defendant entered appearance and pleaded that the 3 rd defendant has no right, title or interest over the property. He asserted that the plaintiff is only a trespasser and the suit property absolutely belongs to him. He pointed out that his wife, Durgabai, had purchased the property from one Ganeshmul Khantar, on 11.12.1954. On and from that date, they are in possession of the property. He pleaded that he is having all the original documents and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is false. The 2 nd defendant remained exparte. 5. The suit went for trial. In any by way of judgment dated 05.04.2004, the suit came to be dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, an appeal in A.S.No.580 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned Appellate Judge came to a conclusion that the Trial Court had not given any findings on the additional issue (1) and that the answer to additional issue (2) was also not satisfactory. Hence, it allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for “ Fresh Disposal ” for answering all the issues in accordance with law. 7. This order of remand was not put in challenge before this Court. Hence, it allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for “ Fresh Disposal ” for answering all the issues in accordance with law. 7. This order of remand was not put in challenge before this Court. On remand, the sole plaintiff died and his legal heirs were impleaded as plaintiff Nos.2 to 6. After coming on record, on 08.06.2023, they filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to let in additional evidence. In the mean time, the 1 st defendant also died and his daughter was impleaded as his legal representative and arrayed as 4 th defendant. She filed a counter stating that no specific leave had been granted by the Appellate Court to let in fresh evidence and therefore, the application is unsustainable. The view expressed by the 4 th defendant found acceptance with the Trial Court and the application for additional evidence came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision. 8. I heard Mr.S.Muthu Kumar for the civil revision petitioners, Mr.T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.Aashish Jain Lunia for the 3 rd respondent. 9. A perusal of the records shows that the Appellate Court had not exercised its power under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The remand was not a restricted remand confined to issues that had been framed by the Lower Appellate Court. The remand set aside the judgment in its entirety and directed the Trial Court to have a fresh look at the entire suit. The operative portion of the order of remand is extracted as hereunder: “In the result appeal is allowed by setting aside suit the lower court Judgment and decree and remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law after answering all the issues.” 10. This makes it clear that the entire suit has come up before the Trial Court again. If I were to accept the plea of Mr.Aashish Jain Lunia that it was a restricted remand, then I would be re-writing the order of remand stating that the said suit is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal on the available evidence. Such an order is not found in the Lower Appellate Court order. 11. If I were to accept the plea of Mr.Aashish Jain Lunia that it was a restricted remand, then I would be re-writing the order of remand stating that the said suit is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal on the available evidence. Such an order is not found in the Lower Appellate Court order. 11. There is yet another difficulty which I encounter that if I were to accept the arguments of Mr.Aashish Jain Lunia. This is on account of Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As per this provision, the correctness and findings of the Court ordering remand cannot be agitated when no appeal has been preferred against the order remanding the suit. 12. The order of the Appellate Court being one of full remand and not being the restricted one, there is no bar for the plaintiff to file an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Unless the scope of enquiry by the Trial Court is restricted or circumscribed by the terms of the order of remand, the Trial Court will clutch at its original jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the same. The words “Fresh Disposal” in the order of remand, leaves no room for any doubt. The Trial Court has, all the powers it had, before the disposal of the suit. See, Sanatan Mohapatra Vs. Hakim Mohammad Kazim Mohmmad and others, AIR 1977 ORI 194 , Rudhilal Vs. Jagannathdas, AIR 1963 MP 344 and K.Seetharamaiah and others Vs. Jasti Surya Prakasa Rao and others, (1993) 2 APLJ 74 . The finding of the Trial Court that no liberty had been granted by the Appellate Court to let in fresh evidence does not stand scrutiny. In the light of the scope of remand, I am constrained to interfere with the order. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 07.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.1065 of 1992 is set aside. The plaintiff will be entitled to mark the documents, subject to relevancy, proof and genuineness of the same. Needless to state that the contesting defendants will be entitled to cross examine the plaintiff on the relevancy of the documents. For the mere fact leave has been granted does not make those documents automatically come to the assistance of the plaintiff. They have to undergo the scrutiny of cross examination. Needless to state that the contesting defendants will be entitled to cross examine the plaintiff on the relevancy of the documents. For the mere fact leave has been granted does not make those documents automatically come to the assistance of the plaintiff. They have to undergo the scrutiny of cross examination. As opportunity has been granted to the plaintiff, in case, the defendants want to let in any evidence, they will be entitled to do so. 14. The learned Judge is requested to act on a web copy of this order and not wait for the certified copy. 15. Mr.Aashish Jain Lunia submitted that the suit is passed over for awaiting orders of this Court. Both the contesting counsel are entitled to inform the Trial Judge that this revision has been allowed and permission has been granted to mark the documents. 16. The plaintiff shall examine himself on 12.12.2024 . The cross examination of the plaintiff should commence on 12.12.2024 and be concluded by 16.12.2024 . In case, there is no further evidence on the side of the defendants, the learned Trial Judge is requested to pronounce the judgment in the suit, on or before, 24.01.2025 . He shall inform this Court about the compliance of this order by 28.01.2025 17. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.