Short Note : 1. Plaintiff Bhalchandrarao filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of the joint family property. 2. The defendant No. 1 resisted the suit on the ground that their had been a partition between the brothers in the year 1942 and that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there was no partition in the year 1942 and that the suit was barred by limitation. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff he submitted an application under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to amend the plaint. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff wanted to seek partition of the agricultural lands also. The appellate Court has allowed the application for amendment and remanded the suit with the direction that the trial Court shall permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint and then allow the defendant to make consequential amendment in the written statement and after giving proper opportunity to lead evidence the Court shall decide the suit afresh. However, in the earlier part of the judgment the appellate Court has also recorded its findings to the effect that it has not been proved that there was any partition in the year 1942 and that the suit was not barred by limitation reversing the findings of the trial Court. 3. Held : I am of the view that when the suit was being remanded for a fresh trial and opportunity being given to the parties to lead evidence the Court should have left all the questions open and should not have concluded the two questions mentioned above. If the appellate Court was of the view that only the question raised in the amendment was to be considered by the trial Court then it should have allowed the amendment itself and framed an issue and referred the same for trial to the trial Court with the direction to take additional evidence and to return the evidence so taken and the finding of the trial Court on the said issue to the appellate Court under the provisions of Order 41 rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the appellate Court did not consider it proper to exercise power under Order 41 rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure and deemed it fit to remand the suit in exercise of its inherent powers the Court should have remanded the entire suit for fresh trial. In fact the appellate Court has observed that the trial Court shall decide the suit afresh but at another stage has held that its findings on the two questions should not be permitted to be re-agitated. The course adopted by the lower appellate Court is not proper in the circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed.