JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a second appeal against he judgment dated 27.1.1981 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 21.11.78 and remanded the case. The trial court has dismissed the suit. 2. Heard the learned counsels and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that a suit under section 209 of the U.P. Act 1 of 1951 was filed by Premwati and Veerwati against the present appellant, Asha Ram. Several issued were framed in the trial court and decision on only issued No. 2 that is: "KYA WAD MIYAD KE ANDER HAI" "Whether suit is within period of limitation"?) was given by the trail court. While giving its finding on this issued the trial court has held that the suit was not filed within three years from the date of attaining majority by the plaintiffs. Hence it was time barred. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner in his judgment has specifically stated that there is no law prohibiting that a suit within three years be filed by the minors after attaining majority and this is also not any where provided in Section 209 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951. Hence he has set aside the finding given by the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellate court must give in finding on the question of limitation. The trial court has discussed that the plaintiffs attained majority and than held that it was not filed within three years from the date of attaining majority but the appellate court has not discussed or come to any conclusion what was the age of the party. Hence it was not correct on its part to set aside that finding. "PRATIVADI KA NAM SRENI I MEN 1372F SE ANKIT HAI - ATAH YE WAD KAL SIMA KE ANDER DAYAR NAHAIN HUA HAI." 6. Moreover, the learned counsel has contended that the trial court has given its finding that the suit is not within time on the ground that defendant is in possession since 1372 Fasli as held at page 3 last but one line of paragraph 1 that. 7. Moreover, the learned counsel has contended that the trial court has given its finding that the suit is not within time on the ground that defendant is in possession since 1372 Fasli as held at page 3 last but one line of paragraph 1 that. 7. But there is no discussion on the question of possession nor could be said that any finding has been given on this point who was in possession or the defendant was in possession since 1372 Fasli. The whole discussion was in respect of the age of plaintiff and the limitation of three years. 8. It cannot be said that the appellate court has not set aside the finding but the appellant court has not set aside the finding but the appellate court has given its reasoning for setting aside the finding and has set aside the same. 9. The appellate court has also allowed amendment application but in my opinion this act of appellate court is beyond the jurisdiction. If there is an application and the case is being remanded on any ground the question of allowing the amendment or not is the discretion of the trial court. Hence it should have been decided by the trial court whether the alleged amendment should have been allowed or not. 10. Thus so far as this par of the finding of the first appellate court is concerned, it is erroneous apparent on the face of it and while partly allowing the second appeal, I set aside this finding of the first appellate court of allowing the amendment application. 11. As discussed above, there is not force in the contention of the learned counsel that the case should not be remanded. Hence I partly dismiss the second appeal and the order of remand of the first appellate court is upheld and the order of the trial court dated 21.11.1978 is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for deciding it in accordance with law and on the basis of the observation made above.