JUDGMENT M.P. Pandey, Member. - This is a revision from the order dated September 28, 1976 passed by Sri A.S. Verma, Addl. Commissioner, Allahabad in Appeal No. 280/309 of 1975-76 of Allahabad. 2. Yagya Narain that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration that he was Sirdar of the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession against defendants 3 to 7. The suit was contested by some of the defendants including defendant Kalka Prasad. Kalka Prasad said that the plaintiff was not in possession, that the Lekhpal and made Qabiz entries in favour of the plaintiff wrongly and he himself was in possession. 3. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit after discussing the entries in the revenue papers and the witnesses produced by the plaintiff and defendants. It was of the view that the plaintiff was in possession from 1368F and as the suit was filed in 1379F the plaintiff had become Sirdar. It further held that defendants 4 to 7 including Kalka Prasad were not in possession and whatever their rights were there they were extinguished. 4. An appeal was filed by Kalka Prasad defendant. It was urged before the learned Addl. Commissioner that while assessing the validity of the Qabiz entries, the trial court should have considered whether P.A. 10 was issued or not and should have recorded a finding on this point. This argument was accepted by the learned Addl. Commissioner, and, therefore, he set aside the decree and remanded the case for decision in the light of the observations made by him. It is against this order that the present second appeal has been filed. 5. It has been urged on behalf of plaintiff-respondent that the learned Addl. Commissioner should have not remanded the suit because remand order is given only in certain specific circumstances-e.g., that is when the suit has been decided upon a preliminary point and that point has not been accepted by the appellate court. It has been said that the present suit was not disposed of upon a preliminary point and, therefore, the order of remand is illegal and beyond jurisdiction. It has been said that the present suit was not disposed of upon a preliminary point and, therefore, the order of remand is illegal and beyond jurisdiction. It is difficult for me to agree with his argument because I find that there is an amendment of the Allahabad High Court in Order 41, Rule 23 which says that the appellate court while reversing or setting aside the decree may, if necessary, in the interest of justice remand the case. This amendment is broader in scope and invests the appellate court with the power to remand a case in the interest of justice. In the present case, I find that although an application was filed by the contesting defendant regarding the issue and non-issue of P.A. 10, and some attempt was also made by the trial court to look into this subject, but unfortunately no finding was given by it. It has, therefore, become necessary to get a finding from the trial court regarding the issue non-issue of P.A. 10 and its effect in the circumstances of the present case. I am, therefore, of the view that there is nothing wrong with the remand order which has been passed in the interest of justice. A remand order does not mean that all the evidence will be retaken afresh. Learned Addl. Commissioner has, in the observations made by him, directed that it is only the issue non-issue of P.A. 10 which has got to be checked by the documentary and oral evidence and a finding on that has to be given. 6. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed.