IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.539 of 2008 BHRIGUDEO SAH @ BHIRIJUDEO SAH, S/o Late Bechan Sah, R/o Village Kankhudia, P.S.-Palasi, District-Araria…..(Defendant 1st party…Respondent 1st party)…………Appellant. Versus 1. DHANESHWAR SAH, S/o Late Ajit Lal Sah, R/o Village-Kankhudia, P.O. Kankhudia, P.S.-Palasi, District-Araria (Plaintiff---- Appellant)….Respondent 1st Party. 2. Jagdish Sah. 3. Inder Sah, Both sons of Late Bechan Sah. 4. Leela Devi, W/o Dalim Chand Sah, D/o Late Bechan Sah, all resident of Village and P.O. Kankhudia, P.S.-Palasi, District-Araria…..(Defendants 1st Party----Respondents 1st Party)…….Respondent 2nd Party. 5. Doman Lal Mandal, S/o Butru Mandal. 6. Chint Lal Mandal, S/o Faujdar Mandal. 7. Suresh Mandal, S/o Faujdar Mandal. All R/o village and P.O. Kankhudia, P.S.-Palasi, District- Araria.----(Defendants 2nd Party----Respondent 2nd Party)……Respondents 3rd Party. ----------- 03. 27.01.2011 The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria by which he has remanded the entire suit to the Court below by setting aside judgment and decree of the Trial Court. On going through the order impugned, I find that the Appellate Court was of the view that the amendment was required in the written statement in view of the evidence of Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the Court below as well as Defendant No. 1. This should have been done by the Appellate Court itself and, he, in fact should have proceeded to hear the appeal after allowing the amendment of the written statement if he felt the necessity of the same instead of remanding the entire suit which is 2 against the established law as laid down even in 2007 (4) PLJR 139. In view of such, the appeal is allowed and the Appellate Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law in disposing of the appeal. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)