JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member- This revision petition has been filed by the defendant in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act against the order dated 7-4-1982 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, arising out of the order dated 25-8-1980 by the learned trial court dismissing the suit. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner has remanded the case in first appeal on the ground that the trial court has not given finding on the issues. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri S.D. Pathak, has argued that the findings are there though not precisely mentioned, that it was not illegality but only irregularity and under Section 99 CPC no decree could be reversed for irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction. He further argued that no prejudice was caused to the plaintiff opposite party as it is only a shortcoming of the judgment and the parties had adduced evidence on the issues and had full opportunity of hearing and so the irregularity was not fatal, that under Order XLI Rule 24 CPC where the evidence on record was sufficient, the appellate court could determine the case finally and the order of remand was not justified and in support, he cited a ruling reported in 1966 AWR 330, and that the rider placed in the order about additional evidence to be permitted was not based on any case of either party and so it was an exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the court. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party, Sri P.K. Misra, has argued that since there was no decision on issues, hence it was desirable to remand the case and provide opportunity to the learned trial court to rectify the mistake, and that Section 99 CPC will not apply as no issue was decided. He further argued that opportunity for additional evidence permitted by the first appellate court was only optional and that Order XLI Rule 24 was not applicable, rather Order XLI Rule 23 and 25 CPC would be applicable. In support, he cited a ruling reported in AIR 1958 Alld. He further argued that opportunity for additional evidence permitted by the first appellate court was only optional and that Order XLI Rule 24 was not applicable, rather Order XLI Rule 23 and 25 CPC would be applicable. In support, he cited a ruling reported in AIR 1958 Alld. 562 in which it was held that the court could even utilise inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, going beyond the scope of Order XLI Rule 23 and 25 of the CPC for remanding a suit if justified. However, this ruling does not apply for it is not a case of no proper trial, issues were there and evidence was also there and the finding and decision on the most material issue number 1 was there. 5. In this case, the dispute is mainly of the interpretation and not of the application of law. It is largely a mis-interpretation by the learned Additional Commissioner to say that the issues were not decided. For the success of the suit, the main issue was issue number 1, whether the plaintiff had become bhumidhar by adverse possession. No doubt, the learned trial court has not taken up the issues for findings serially. It is better to quote the three issues framed. The first was as stated above. The second and third issues were, whether the defendant is bhumidhar of the land in dispute and whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief, if so what. Obviously, issue number 3 depends on the decision and is included in issue numbers 1 and 2. Also issue number 2 is only supplementary to issue number 1. As is the settled law, the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs .Therefore, the issue number 2 is not material unless the issue number 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff. If otherwise the suit fails, the instance of the learned counsel for the opposite party on the finding on each issue as required under Order XX Rule 5 CPC and supported by the ruling reported in AIR 1951 Pepsu 138, serves no purpose because as discussed earlier issue number 1 was sufficient to decide the case as also required by Rule 5 of Order XX of the CPC. Usually, such issue numbers 1 and 2 are taken together for a finding. Usually, such issue numbers 1 and 2 are taken together for a finding. The circumstances of this case indicate that there was indeed only one point for a finding and the finding is certainly contained in the last sentences of para 4 and 5 of the trail court's judgment. A perusal of these paras clearly shows that the learned trial court has considered the necessary aspects. If considered in this light, it is clear that no illegality was committed, at the most, it was irregularity and I agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no occasion to reserve the decree on this ground. I also agree that no prejudice to the plaintiff was caused in the trial and even by the judgment and that the learned Additional Commissioner could very well proceed under Order XLI Rule 24 CPC if he so chose to do. There was neither any need to frame any fresh issue and refer it to the trial court nor was it done, so Rule 25 CPC would not apply. The observation in the ruling reported in 1966 AWR 330 are fully applicable to the present case and the appeal was a fit one for being heard on merits and decided by the first appellate court. I also agree that the rider about the additional evidence permitted on remand is again without jurisdiction and must go. 6. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed, the judgment and order by the learned Additional Commissioner dated 7-4-1982 is hereby set aside and the first appeal is remanded to the learned first appellate court for hearing on merits and deciding the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations above. 7. The next date of hearing before the first appellate court is fixed for 5-9-1983.