N. M. MIABHOY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed against an order for remand made on 30th September 1957 by the learned Assistant Judge Nadiad in Civil Pal No. 261 of 1955. The only point which is raised by Mr. Shah in support of this application is that even assuming that the order of the learned Judge granting amendment of written-statement is correct the final order remanding the whole suit is bad and that the only proper order which can have been made by the learned appellate Judge is an order for raising ? additional issues and if necessary to call upon the trial Court to take additional evidence on those issues and to certify findings thereon to the appellate Court. In other words the objection is that the order disposing of the appeal and remanding the whole suit is bad and that the appeal should have been kept on the file of the learned Judge and findings on additional issues should have been got certified by the trial Court. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be mentioned in order to dispose of this revision application are as follows. The plaintiff-petitioners case was that the suit land measuring 4 acres and 6 gunthas originally belonged to her father Chhotalal and that on the death of Chhotalal it devolved upon her brother Bechar and on the death of the latter it devolved upon her. Her further case was that her father had created a mortgage over the suit property in favour of one Shiaram and that the latter had transferred his right title and interest as mortgagee to the predecessor-in-title of the defendants. She further alleged that she had sold 1 acre and 12 gunthas from out of 4 acres and 5 gunthas to the defendants by a sale-deed dated 1-6-1944 and that therefore she was entitled to redeem the balance of 2 acres and 34 gunthas from the defendants. Therefore the present suit was brought by the plaintiff for redemption of the aforesaid mortgage and for possession of 2 acres and 34 gunthas out of survey No. 401. The defendants resisted this claim on several grounds. As many as 12 issues were raised by the trial Court for deciding the points in dispute between the parties. All these issues were decided against the defendants and the trial Court passed a decree for redemption as prayed for. The defendants resisted this claim on several grounds. As many as 12 issues were raised by the trial Court for deciding the points in dispute between the parties. All these issues were decided against the defendants and the trial Court passed a decree for redemption as prayed for. Prom that decree the defendants preferred appeal No. 261 of 1955 to the Court of the learned District Judge of Kaira at Nadiad. At the hearing of the appeal the defendants sought an amendment of the written-statement by introduction of certain facts some of which were in the nature of clarification of the original written-statement and some others were absolutely new facts. Briefly the new defence was as follows. It was urged that when Bechar died the plaintiff was not the only heir of Bechar but that one Banji a sister of the plaintiff was a co-heir of Bechar along with the plaintiff. It was urged that plaintiff was not the sole person entitled to redeem the suit mortgage. It was also further urged by the defendants that they had purchased the right title and interest in the equity-of-redemption inherited by Banji from Banjis successor in title. It appears that according to the defendants this was done during the pendency of this litigation Therefore it was urged by the defendants that they had become co-shares of the equity of redemption along with the plaintiff and therefore that fact was bound to affect the result of the present suit. The learned Judge was minded to allow the application for amendment of the written-statement. Mr. Shah states that at present he is not concerned with the merits or the de-merits of the aforesaid decision of the learned Judge. He states that that decision may have to be challenged by his client at a proper and a later stage. The learned Judge was minded to allow the application for amendment of the written-statement. Mr. Shah states that at present he is not concerned with the merits or the de-merits of the aforesaid decision of the learned Judge. He states that that decision may have to be challenged by his client at a proper and a later stage. But he contends that even assuming that the order of the learned Judge was right that the written-statement should be permitted to be amended that would not entitle the learned Judge in law to set aside the decree and to remand the whole suit back for a re-trial thus opening up the whole suit and giving a fresh opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence on the aforesaid 12 issues which had been raised for decision by the trial Court and on which issues the defendants had the fullest opportunity of leading such evidence as they were advised. He contends that if any fresh issues do arise as a result of the amendment of the written-statement then it was the duty of the learned appellate Judge to draw up those issues and then consider whether those issues could be decided by the appellate Court as directed by order 41 rule 24 of the Civil procedure Code and if it could not do so then to send those issues under order 41 rule 25 for recording fresh evidence and for recording findings thereon by the trial Court. In my Judgment the contention of Mr. Shah is correct and must be upheld. The Civil Procedure Code permits a decree to be set aside and to order a remand if the trial Court happens to decide a suit on a preliminary point. Such is not the case here. It is true that the Court has inherent powers of setting aside a decree and ordering a remand if it thinks that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. But this extreme power can be exercised only in those cases where the interests of justice demand that it should be so done and broadly speaking such a power cannot be exercised in those cases for which a specific provision is to be found in the Civil Procedure Code itself. In the Civil Procedure Code there are provisions on this subject in Order 41 Rule 24 and Rule 25. In the Civil Procedure Code there are provisions on this subject in Order 41 Rule 24 and Rule 25. Rule 24 states that if fresh issues are raised by the appellate Court and if it finds that there is sufficient evidence on the record to permit it to dispose of additional issues the appellate Court has Jurisdiction to do so Therefore before setting aside a decree and ordering a remand the first duty of the appellate Court is to see whether it can or cannot act under order 41 rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. Prom the order passed by the learned Judge he does not appear to have considered this aspect of the matter at all. If the learned Judge finds that he cannot decide the additional issues on the materials already on the record then he has got to consider the matter in the light of order 41 rule 25 and that rule directs that if additional evidence is required to be taken for disposing of the additional issues then it may remand the matter to the trial Court and have the findings of that Court certified on the additional issues This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the learned appellate Judge. In my judgment having regard to the fact that the defendants had fullest opportunity of leading evidence and the issues which had already been framed by the trial Court there is De reason whatsoever for setting aside the decree in toto. There is no doubt that additional issues will have to be raised as a result of the amendment of the written-statement. It was the duty of the appellate Court to raise those additional issues and I have no doubt whatsoever that in the circumstances of this case even if the learned Judge finds that there are no sufficient materials on the record of the case to record its findings on these additional issues the learned Judge can and ought to have taken recourse to order 41 rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Code. It cannot set aside the whole decree and remand the suit thus ordering a retrial of the whole suit and thereby putting the parties to the Inconvenience and the expense of preferring a second round of appeal to the District Court. It cannot set aside the whole decree and remand the suit thus ordering a retrial of the whole suit and thereby putting the parties to the Inconvenience and the expense of preferring a second round of appeal to the District Court. Therefore in my Judgment the order of the learned appellate Judge requires to be revised and I order that that order should be set aside. I direct that the learned appellate Judge shall take appeal No. 261 of 1955 on the file of the District Court under its original number and proceed to decide the same in the light of the provisions contained in order 41 rule 24 or rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Code and in the light of this Judgment. The opponents shall pay the costs of this application to the heirs of the plaintiff and bear their own. Revision Application allowed. .