CR 42 of 2008. 13.8.2008 Present: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K.D.Sood, with M/s. B.K.Sood and Haresh Sood, counsel for the respondent. This is the landlady’s revision against the order of the learned appellate Authority remanding the matter for decision afresh by the trial Court passed in appeal preferred by her against the judgment and order of the learned Rent Controller dismissing her eviction petition against the respondent- tenants. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition preferred by the landlady seeking order of ejectment against the respondents on the grounds as set out therein. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority holds that the Rent Controller has decided the petition only on the ground that the landlady never appeared as her witness to prove her case. He considers the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bhimappa and others v. Allisab & others, AIR 2006 Karnataka 231, holding that there is no bar for the attorney to appear for and on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, the order is set aside and the matter remanded to the learned Rent Controller. This is not a satisfactory way of -2- dealing with the appeal. In case the learned Appellate Authority had concluded that the matter could have been dealt with in the manner and on the statement of the attorney alone, he should have considered the case on merits and then proceeded with the matter. Remand is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the appeal. It sets the parties back in time and needlessly prolongs litigation. This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned Appellate Authority, Solan who shall consider the appeal on the grounds as set out therein. Parties to appear before the learned Appellate Authority on 5.9.2008, who shall thereafter proceed with the appeal with expedition. Records if received be sent back forthwith. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. August 13, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.