' This F. A.
0. From an order of remand has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. Rehma, uncle of the appellant, sold some agricultural land in his favour. Another nephew of Rehma, namely, the respondent, brought a suit to challenge the sale under the agricultural custom, alleging inter alia that the sale was without consideration and legal necessity. The trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that the payment of consideration and legal necessity stood established. The respondent went in appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge found that the trial Court had not discussed the evidence led by the parties on the issue of consideration and legal necessity. Consequently, he set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the suit back to it for a frees decision after considering the relevant evidence.
From the order of two learned District Judge the appellant has come to this Court.
3. Counsel appearing for both parties agreed that the order of remand was uncalled for as all the evidence which the parties wanted t lead in support of their respective positions was already on the record and the learned District Judge could have recorded his own finding on the basis thereof.
This being so, I set aside the order of remand which will unnecessarily prolong the proceedings and direct that the learned District Judge may himself examine the evidence and record his finding on the issue in question. In support of the order which I have made I will refer to the view taken in Basent Singh v. Kartar Singh where it was observed that the appellate Court need not send the case back to the lower B Court merely for the purpose of obtaining a finding on the evidence that1 already exists on the record which the appellate Court itself can weigh and discuss. The costs of this appeal shall abide the final event. AIR 1936 Lab. 213