JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal is fifed on behalf of the defendant under the following circumstances. 2. Plaintiff Ramlal filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 2,000/- on the basis of a Hundi dated Agan Badi 3 S. Y. 2003 executed by the latter. The Hundi contained an endorsement on its back indicating a repayment of Rs. 1,000/- on Fagun S. Y. 2003. The Hundi was to mature on Asad Sudi 3 S. Y. 2004. 3. Plaintiff's case is that on the date of maturity the Hundi was presented to the defendant's shop. The defendant under the pretext of examining the same took it up and falsely and surreptitiously put thereon the endorsement referred to above. 4. The defence was that the defendant has only received Rs. 1,925/- at the time of the execution of the Hundi as Rs. 75/- for interest had been deducted in advance. He paid Rs. 1,000/- on Fagun Badi 4 S. Y. 2003. Besides this plaintiff had entered into a transaction of gunny bags with Pranjeevan Ambalal. Pranjeevan Ambalal claimed from the plaintiff margin money. Plaintiff thereupon got the defendant to accept the Havala for Rs. 928-12-0 on Fagan Sudi-5 S. Y. 2003. Pranjeevan Ambalal thereafter recovered this sum from the defendant. Thus the defendant had satisfied the entire claim of the plaintiff. 5. On these respective allegations of parties the case was tried. The trial court refused to consider the plea with respect to the sum of Rs. 928-12-0 referable to the Dayala of Pranjeevan Ambalal on the ground that the defendant had not paid requisite court-fees on this sum. He considered the other plea regarding the payment of Rs. 1000/-. He held the plaintiff's case to be true and that of the defendant to be false. He therefore decreed plaintiff's suit. 6. On appeal the learned District Judge agreed with the finding of the trial court as regards the item of Rs. 1,000/- referring to alleged repayment. He therefore confirmed the decree in so far as this sum, was concerned. He however held that the plea set forth by the defendant as regards Rs. 928-12-0 was a plea of adjustment as distinct from a plea of set-oft and no court fee was payable in respect of the amount involved in that plea. 1,000/- referring to alleged repayment. He therefore confirmed the decree in so far as this sum, was concerned. He however held that the plea set forth by the defendant as regards Rs. 928-12-0 was a plea of adjustment as distinct from a plea of set-oft and no court fee was payable in respect of the amount involved in that plea. He therefore partially allowed the appeal and directed a remand for consideration of the defendant's plea regarding Rs. 928-12-0. 7. Present second appeal is preferred on behalf of the defendant challenging the correctness of the course adopted by the Lower Court. It is contended that it was not permissible for the lower court to decree the claim partially and to remand the case for the rest. 8. It is urged that the appellate court when it found that part of the defendant's claim was erroneously committed from consideration by the lower court it should not have confirmed the decree of the lower court with respect to a portion of plaintiff's claim. Reliance in this connection was sought to be placed upon the decisions reported in- 'Banwarilal v. Saminanlal', 11 All 488 (A)- 'Mahesh Prasad v. Ramjor Singh' 27 All 163 (B);- 'Sheolal Balmukund v. Jugal Kishore', AIR 1940 Nag 349 (C); and- 'Kolandayammal v. Krishnaswami Goundain', AIR 1954 Mad 167 (D). 9. On analysis the contentions appear to be twofold. Firstly that when the appellate court while dealing with the case found that a part of the defence was omitted from consideration and that this omission was erroneous it should have drawn on its power under Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P.C. and required the lower court to record evidence on that point and send its finding thereon with reasons therefor and then pass one decree finally. 10. Secondly the appellate court passed a decree in respect of a part of the plaintiff's case and withheld it with respect to the rest. Such piecemeal disposal of the case is not warranted by the provisions of the Code and ought as far as possible to be avoided. Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P.C., which confers powers upon the appellate court for remand under that rule is specially intended to avoid piecemeal disposal. 11. Such piecemeal disposal of the case is not warranted by the provisions of the Code and ought as far as possible to be avoided. Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P.C., which confers powers upon the appellate court for remand under that rule is specially intended to avoid piecemeal disposal. 11. There is no doubt that had the appellate court followed the course suggested in the first of the aforesaid two contentions that would be perfectly logical, legal and desirable. But the question is if it thought, out of two items of payment pleaded, plea with regard to one is untenable and the other is erroneously not considered could it not legally confirm the decree of the lower court to the extent covered by the first item and withhold it with respect to the other item. 12. Present appeal is against the decree covering the plea of the defendant regarding payment of Rs. 1,000/- and not against an order of remand which cannot be appealed against. 13. If it is not legally permissible for the lower court to partially decree the claim then no doubt the decree will have to be set aside and a direction will have to be given to follow the course indicated in the first of the above two contentions. On the other hand, if under certain circumstances it is not illegal to determine part of plaintiff's claim so as to determine the rights of the parties finally with respect thereto deferring consideration of the rest then the matter would be one of propriety and desirability. 14. The contention put forward on behalf of the defendant in substance is, that is piecemeal trial, and if this were permitted there may arise cases where there are multiple decrees existing one and the same time and yet the case is not wholly disposed of. 15. There are cases where there are more than two decrees as where a claim is decreed on admission under Order 12, Rule 6, Civil P.C. In such cases at least in Madras and Patna there may be more than two decrees one at the stage of admission and the other at the stage of final adjudication. 16. We also do come across decrees which are partly preliminary and partly final. In these cases, too there may exist two final decrees at two different stages of an action. 17. 16. We also do come across decrees which are partly preliminary and partly final. In these cases, too there may exist two final decrees at two different stages of an action. 17. Therefore it is not illegal to have more than one decree in respect of the one and the same action. Where passing of more than one decree may cause injustice or prejudice to a party this should not be permitted. But where justice lies in disposing of a matter finally with respect to a part of the claim there is nothing in the Code to prevent this being done. 18. The matter will entirely depend upon the circumstances of each case. If a finding on part of the case finally determined is likely to have its repercussion upon the portion left undetermined then the court should avoid dealing with the case piecemeal and ought to decide the whole case. Where however decision with respect to part of the claim is not likely to affect the decision on the rest and failure to decide the case partially may work injustice to a party then the court may decide the case in part and. withhold decision as regards the rest. 19. In the present case plaintiff sued for Rs. 2,000/-. The defendant pleaded repayment of the whole amount in two separate sums of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 928-12-0. The appellate court holds concurring with the lower court that the story of repayment of Rs. 1,000/- is untrue. It however finds that another item of payment of Rs. 928-12-0 is undetermined. 20. Justice in this case will lie in not preventing the plaintiff from recovering what he is entitled to Because any determination regarding the second item unconnected with the first is not likely to prejudice the defendant or affect plaintiffs right to recover the portion based on earlier finding. 21. If we have regard for the definition of the term decree it will be clear that the term is intended to include any formal adjudication which so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be cither preliminary or final. 22. The decision with regard to the repayment alleged by the defendant of Rs. 22. The decision with regard to the repayment alleged by the defendant of Rs. 1,000/- is final so far as the Court expressing it is concerned, and conclusively determines rights of parties with regard to one of the matters in controversy in the suit. The adjudication is therefore certainly a decree. It is this aspect of the decision of the Lower Court that gave the defendant right to prefer second appeal. The definition of 'decree' certainly implies final adjudication of some of the matters in controversy in suit. This will also make it clear that existence of more than one decree in the same suit is not illegal. 23. Coming to the question of desirability of allowing such tiling to happen, I may say that as a matter of practice grant of more than one decree should as far as possible be avoided as this is likely to give rise to unnecessary complication and the cause is unduly delayed. But this is by no means an inflexible rule and considerations of justice may outweigh any other consideration. 24. Coming now to the authorities cited on behalf of the appellant the first case cited is- 'AIR 1940 Nag 349 (C)'. In that case plaintiffs who were some of the members of a Joint Hindu family filed a suit for declaration that the decree obtained by a mortgagee from the other members was not binding upon them and also pleaded in the alternative that they were entitled to redeem. The trial court held that the former decree was binding upon the plaintiffs though they were not entitled to redeem. The appellate court while considering the binding character of the previous decree held that the matter involved two questions whether there was partition between the members of the joint family and the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiffs. Secondly whether assuming there was no partition the mortgage debt was for legal necessity. He confirmed the finding of the trial court on the first point and remanded the case for consideration of the latter. It further held that the defendants were entitled to redeem. 25. Their Lordships of the Nagpur High Court deprecated the practice of sending back the case for new trial at the same time deciding some of the issues. He confirmed the finding of the trial court on the first point and remanded the case for consideration of the latter. It further held that the defendants were entitled to redeem. 25. Their Lordships of the Nagpur High Court deprecated the practice of sending back the case for new trial at the same time deciding some of the issues. They pointed out that if it should be necessary to have a fresh trial the appellate court should be careful enough not to prejudge the issue. 26. I think their Lordships were right in making these observations in so far the same applied to the facts of that particular case. In that case none of the parties could get any effective and executable relief by the adjudication and it was nothing better than a finding on some of the issues and remand under Section 151, Civil P.C. for a, fresh trial. 27. In ' AIR 1954 Mad 167 (D)', Mack, J. held that Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C. does not contemplate an appellate court confirming substantial findings of fact and then remanding the entire suit for fresh disposal because it considers finding on some other issue unsatisfactory or finding on some further issue necessary. 28. His Lordship was dealing with a case of remand under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C. and having regard to the provisions of that Rule remand, of the nature objected to by his Lordship, was clearly illegal. 29. Next case is 11 All 488 (A)'. In this case the question for consideration was where a suit is not disposed of on a preliminary point was a remand order under Section 562, Civil P.C. (which was then in force) justified in view of specific provision of S. 564, Civil P.C. 30. Section 562 provided for a remand when the suit is erroneously disposed of on a preliminary point. 31. Section 564 provided that there shall not be a remand of a case 'for a second decision except as provided by Section 562'. 32. The view taken there was that the word 'suit' in Section 562, Civil P.C. means the whole of suit and not a part of it. 33. This case is inapplicable as it is based on provisions special in the earlier Civil Procedure Code. 34. 27 All 163 (B)' merely follows the above case. 35. 32. The view taken there was that the word 'suit' in Section 562, Civil P.C. means the whole of suit and not a part of it. 33. This case is inapplicable as it is based on provisions special in the earlier Civil Procedure Code. 34. 27 All 163 (B)' merely follows the above case. 35. In- 'Kallu v. Bhagirath Lal', AIR 1917 All 187 (1) (E) the case involved a question regarding a claim for money on the basis of accounts stated between the parties. Plaintiff impleaded seven defendants. Out of three issues, first dealt with the defence regarding defendant Kallu's thumb impressions having been taken FARJI and without payment of consideration. Second issue dealt with the question of limitation and the third about the liability of defendants other than Kallu. 36. The court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit could not be entertained on the entries in the Khata. 37. Appellate court came to a finding on the materials before it in favour of the plaintiff except on the third one for which he remanded the case. 38. Their Lordships held that, under the circumstances there obtaining, power under O. 41, R. 25, Civil P.C. ought to have been exercised. 39. In view of the fact that the liability of the rest of the defendants was not touched, the procedure followed by the appellate court was considered not desirable. 40. There is nothing in these cases to justify the conclusion that in no case, in the course of the same suit more than one decree can be passed nor do they show that consideration of justice in all cases demand one and only final adjudication of all the matters in controversy. 41. I think having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case the decision of the lower appellate court confirming the decree of the trial court regarding claim apart from Rs. 928-12-0 is not open to objection and ought not to be set aside. The appeal does not challenge the order of remand in respect of the item of Rs. 928-12-0 nor is such an order appealable. 42. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.