THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.512 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the decree and judgment, dated 26.02.2010, in Appeal Suit No.250 of 2005, on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby, the Appeal Suit filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff was allowed setting aside the decree and judgment, dated 10.09.2003, in Original Suit No.1012 of 2000, on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 2. Respondent herein is the plaintiff and the appellants are the defendants in the Original Suit. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 10.09.2003, in Original Suit No.1012 of 2000, on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, respondent herein filed Appeal Suit No.250 of 2005, on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada. During the pendency of the Appeal Suit, respondent herein filed I.A.No.697 of 2005 for amendment of the plaint viz., for inclusion of the relief of declaration of title, and the said application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, appellants filed Civil Revision Petition No.4040 of 2006 before this Court. This Court, by order, dated 04.12.2006, dismissed the petition while leaving open to the appellants to file additional written statement raising all objections and to insist to frame additional issues, in the suit, touching upon the areas of controversy. Consequently, the appellate Court framed additional issues on 21.09.2007. Thereafter, the appellate Court, vide the impugned judgment, remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to permit the respondent herein to carry out the amendment and to give opportunity to the appellants to file additional written statement and dispose of the suit, after framing of issues and giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the respondent herein filed a memo on 21.01.2008 stating that she is not proposing to adduce any further evidence, for the present, on the additional issues framed in the Appeal Suit and so, the appellate Court ought to have passed the judgment on merits without remanding the matter to the trial Court and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 4. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. 5. In view of the direction given by this Court, by order, dated 04.12.2006, in C.R.P.No.4040 of 2006, the appellate Court framed the following additional issues: “1. Whether the relief of declaration is not barred by time? 2. Whether the relief of declaration is barred by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.? 3. Whether the Hon’ble court has got jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the value of this suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and this Hon’ble court? 4. Whether the relief of declaration is properly and correctly valued?” 6. In view of the fact that the respondent herein filed a memo to the effect that she is not proposing to adduce any further evidence, for the present, on the additional issues framed in the Appeal Suit, question of remanding the matter to the trial Court does not arise. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the decree and judgment, dated 26.02.2010, in Appeal Suit No.250 of 2005, on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada. The appellate Court is directed to dispose of the Appeal Suit on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 21, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.512 OF 2010 Between: Netam Venkateswara Rao and another .....PETITIONERS AND Smt. Maddineni Vani ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.512 OF 2010 September 21, 2010