THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.331 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The first respondent filed O.S.No.357 of 1986 in the Court of District Munsif, Rajahmundry, against the appellants and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,000/-. It was pleaded that the first respondent supplied carbonic gas to the appellants and respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the suit amount is due towards price thereof. The appellants filed written statement disputing the plaint averments. An objection was also raised as to the maintainability of the suit in the form, in which it was presented. The trial Court held that the first respondent is an unregistered firm and that the suit is not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. Therefore, the first respondent filed A.S.No.7 of 1992 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry. In the appeal, it filed I.A.Nos.1147 and 1158 of 1998 with a prayer to condone the delay in filing certain documents and to receive the documents at the stage of appeal, obviously under Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC. Through judgment, dated 06.10.1998, the lower appellate Court allowed the applications and remanded the matter to the trial Court for adjudication, with a direction to frame issues touching upon the character of the first respondent. The appellants feel aggrieved by the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court. Heard Sri T.S.Anand, learned counsel for the appellants. Though the first respondent is served with notice, it has not chosen to enter appearance. The suit was filed for recovery of a meager sum of Rs.12,000/-. However, it was given rise to several proceedings and the dispute is pending for the past more than two decades. This unfortunately, is the state of affairs prevailing in the system. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff supplied Gas Cylinders as alleged in the plaint? 2. Whether the defendant firm is a new firm constituted by induction of new partners, as such this defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff? 3. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? 4. To what relief? To prove its case, the first respondent adduced the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the appellants, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the first respondent. However, in answer to issue No.3, the trial Court held that the suit is not maintainable. It proceeded on the assumption that the first respondent is a partnership firm, but not registered. In the appeal preferred by the first respondent, it made an effort to prove that it is a company incorporated, with valid registration and dismissal of the suit by treating it, as a partnership firm was untenable. It has also filed a copy of memorandum of articles by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The lower appellate Court had the benefit of the evidence recorded by the trial Court as well as the findings on issue Nos.1 and 2. Issue No.3 was purely technical in nature and verification of the memorandum of articles would have resolved a controversy. Instead, it has remanded the matter to the trial Court. This Court is of the view that the remand was totally uncalled for. Being the Court of Appeal and vested with the power to express views on merits and to appreciate the evidence, the lower appellate Court ought to have received the documents and examined the impact thereof on issue No.3. Hence, the appeal is allowed, and the order under appeal is set aside. Since the subject matter is only Rs.12,000/-, the lower appellate Court shall complete the hearing of the appeal in one or two sessions and dispose of the same, on merits, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 19th AUGUST, 2009. kvni