JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated January 2, 1974 allowing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated May 5, 1973 passed by Sri R.A. Shusia, Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Bulandshahar, decreeing the plaintiff's suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. The plaintiff Buniyad Ali brought a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which was contested by the defendant. The trial court framed 5 issues. Subsequently an application was moved by the defendant with the request that two more issues should also be framed which prayer was allowed. These two additional issued, however, were not added in the list of the issues. 3. The suit was decreed by the trial court on May 5, 1973. The defendant went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who held that the trial cur should have incorporated the Additional issues with the other issues and should have given separate finding thereon. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for re-deciding it on all the issued including those two issues as well which were ordered to be added subsequently on the application of the defendant. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. From the perusal of the judgment of the trial court it appears that it had given its finding on all five issues framed earlier and during the discussion it had referred to these two issued also which were added subsequently and it came to the conclusion that they were redundant and no separate discussion thereon was necessary in view of the finding of the other issues. The learned Additional Commissioner held the view that such cursory decision on these two issues was not justified and that is why he allowed the appeal and remanded the case of the trial court. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner held the view that such cursory decision on these two issues was not justified and that is why he allowed the appeal and remanded the case of the trial court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the two issues added subsequently were not on any new ground and they were covered by the issued having already been framed and the findings on all these two issues were also issues were already included in the finding of the other issues, hence a separate discussion on these two issues were not necessary and the judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. I do agree with this argument. A careful perusal of the judgment of the trial court clearly shows that the finding on other issues covers the added issued also, hence no separate findings were necessary on them. Moreover even if it was held by the trail court that these two issues were redundant this observation was also a sort of finding. The first appellant court was at liberty to disagree with the findings so recorded because it could assail the judgment of the trial court on law and facts both and it could come to its own finding independently of the view taken by the trial court. In such circumstances the remand of the case was not proper and the appeal should have been decided on merits. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner is, therefore, not justified and deserves to be reversed. 8. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner is set aside and the case is remanded back to him to decided the appeal on merits according to law.