M. Seetharama Murti, J. - (1.)THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellant/defendant is directed against the decree and judgment dated 25.04.2008 of the learned District Judge, Karimnagar passed in A.S. No. 76 of 2006, whereby learned District Judge while allowing the said appeal had set aside the decree and judgment dated 21.11.2005 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar passed in O.S. No. 507 of 2002 and had remanded the suit to the trial Court with a direction to permit the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence as sought for in I.A. No. 401 of 2008 filed in the appeal suit and give an opportunity to the sole defendant to adduce rebuttal evidence, if any, and dispose of the suit afresh in accordance with law.
(2.)I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant. I have perused the material record.
The parties in this civil miscellaneous appeal shall hereinafter be referred to as the defendant/appellant and the plaintiff/respondent for convenience and clarity.

(3.)THE facts necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows:
"The plaintiff had brought a suit against the sole defendant for perpetual injunction in respect of two extents of land viz., Ac.0.34 guntas of land in Sy. No. 496/B and Ac.1.12 guntas in Sy. No. 498/A situated in Thimmapur village in Karimnagar District, more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The defendant having filed a written statement had resisted the suit. After full -fledged trial and on merits, the trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The aggrieved plaintiff had preferred the first appeal before the District Court, Karimnagar. Before the first appellate court, the plaintiff had filed I.A. No. 401 of 2008 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code requesting to receive the pahani patrikas of the suit year and also of the years prior to and subsequent to the suit year as additional evidence in order to establish his pleaded case that he was and is in possession of the suit schedule property. The Court below after adverting to the pleadings of both the sides and the details of the exhibits marked as exhibits A1 to A6 and B1 to B6 had noted that the suit was filed in the year 2002 and that none of the pahanies filed by the plaintiff in A series relate to the suit year and that the exhibits B1 to B4, like the documents of the plaintiff, also do not relate to the suit year and that though exhibit B5, pahani for the year 2001 -2002 relates to the suit year, it only shows the name of the defendant as possessor and owner in respect of Ac.1.09 gunts in Sy. No. 498/A, but, that document was issued by the Village Secretary (Panchayat Karyadarshi), but, not by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Having thus noted that there is no documentary evidence of reliable character evidencing possession of any one of the parties as on the date of the suit and during the suit year, and, in view of the further fact that an application to receive additional evidence was filed by the plaintiff, the Court below thought it appropriate to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence and the defendant to adduce rebuttal evidence before arriving at a just and final decision in the suit; and, therefore, while disposing of the appeal, the Court below had allowed the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff for receiving additional evidence and remanded the suit to the trial Court with a direction to the trial Court to permit the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence and also give an opportunity to the defendant to adduce rebuttal evidence, if any, and dispose of the suit afresh in accordance with law."