Maharajah Sri Maharajah Sahib Maharban Dostan Maharajah Sri Rao Sir Venkataswetachellapathi Ranga Rao Bahadur Garu, Maharajah of Bobbili having Abdicated his Rights on 11.10.1916 in favour of his eldest son, the Hon'ble Sri Rajah Rao Sri Venkata Kumara Kristna Ranga Rao Bahadur Garu, Rajah of Bobbili vs Sri Raiah Sri Lakchmi Narasimha Sanyasi Raju Peda Baliar Sinhulu Bahadur Garu, Zamindar of Salur

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.—The District Munsif found that the value of the suit was beyond the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction and returned

the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. He took all the evidence that was tendered before him. On appeal, the District Judge was of

opinion that the evidence of the Commissioner which was acted upon by the District Munsif was unreliable owing to his want of experience of the

forests on the suit estate and that ""it was desirable to get a valuation made by some officer of experience who has also knowledge of local

conditions or is in a position to ascertain them."" He, therefore, reversed the order of the District Munsif and remanded the suit for disposal.

Objection is taken to the procedure adopted by the District Judge on the ground that he has no power to reverse and remand the suit.

I am of opinion that the objection is sound. Ail the evidence that was tendered was taken by the District Munsif and he dwelt with the question

of the value of the property on its merits and on the evidence before him. No error of law is suggested. The function of the Appellate Court in such

cases is either to confirm or reverse the decision of the lower Court and when it is of opinion that the evidence on record is not sufficient to enable

it to come to a proper decision, to call for additional evidence. If the decision of the lower Court is arrived at by the exclusion of relevant evidence

or by admitting irrelevant evidence or is vitiated by any other irregularity, the Appellate Court can call for a revised finding in the light of its

observations. These are the powers which Appellate Courts have under Order XLI of the CPC when the case has not bean disposed of on a

preliminary point by the lower Court and the Appellate Court disagrees with it.

The power to reverse and remand in such cases is given by Rule 23 of Order XLI of the CPC and though it has been held that the rule is not

exhaustive, I do not think that recourse should be had to Order XLI, Rule 23, when the proper course is to follow the procedure in Order XLI,

Rules 24 to 29.

In the present case the remand of the whole suit for disposal by the lower Court is, in my opinion, not warranted by the provisions of Order XLI

of the Code of Civil Procedure.

I set aside the order of the District Court and direct the appeal to the District Court be disposed of according to law in the light of the above

observations.

Costs will abide and follow the result.