As per case facts, plaintiffs sought declaration, permanent injunction, and partition of ancestral property, claiming a 1/2 share. The Trial Court allowed the suit, but the Appellate Court set aside ... this judgment, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The Appellate Court allowed the defendants' application for additional evidence and directed the impleadment of necessary parties (Sumitra Bai & Kamla Bai), which had been overlooked by the Trial Court. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the Appellate Court improperly allowed additional evidence without prior pleadings and remanded the case mechanically without deciding on merits. The question arose whether the Appellate Court rightly remanded the case back to the Trial Court after allowing additional evidence and identifying non-joinder of necessary parties, without adjudicating on the merits itself. Finally, the Court affirmed that once the First Appellate Court allows an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and identifies non-joinder of necessary parties, it has the discretion to remand the matter for fresh adjudication after impleading necessary parties and considering new evidence. The remand was based on cogent reasons, and it was not required to record findings on merits.