JUDGMENT M.N. Mithal, J. - The defendant has assailed an order of remand in this appeal. 2. The suit of the plaintiff has been pending since 1980. It was adjourned on 16-3-1982 at the instance of the plaintiff and on the next date again the plaintiff applied for adjournment on the ground that his witness had not come on account of illness and because of distance. This application was dismissed on 16-4-1982 on objection by the defendant. The court thereafter proceeded under Order 17, Rule 3 C.P.C. and directed the parties to lead their evidence. No evidence was adduced by the plaintiff. The defendant was present along with his witnesses but from the order it is not clear whether any witness was examined on behalf of the defendant or not. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit in absence of the evidence in support of plaintiffs case. 3. The plaintiff filed an appeal. In the appellate court it was not disputed that the court had the right to proceed with the suit under Order 17. Rule 3 C P.C. The Court, however, found that the trial court had not decided the suit on merits and there was no discussion or decision on the various issues that were raised between the parties. The court, therefore, held that the decision was a hasty one and it was not a judgment in the eye of law as it was not based on any reasons or findings. Consequently the appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was set aside. The suit was remanded to the trial court with the direction that it will be registered on its original number and will be decided in accordance with Jaw afresh. A further direction was given that the court will permit the plaintiff to present his case before the court and the defendant will be compensated by costs in accordance with the circumstances of the case. 4. Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has vehemently urged that the court was not justified in passing the order of remand even it in its opinion the judgment of the trial court was not in consonance with the provision of law. When a suit is decided under Order 17, Rule 3 C.P.C . 4. Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has vehemently urged that the court was not justified in passing the order of remand even it in its opinion the judgment of the trial court was not in consonance with the provision of law. When a suit is decided under Order 17, Rule 3 C.P.C . the court must decide it on merits on the available evidence and where there be no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim, the suit is bound to fail According to the appellant the only defect in the judgment was that it was not in consonance with the provision of Order 20, Rule 5 C P C. i.e. decision on each issue had not been given by the trial Court such a defect could be removed by the appellate court itself without necessitating remand of the suit. In any case, the trial Court could be directed to rewrite the judgment but in no case could a direction be given to admit fresh evidence, the trial court having once proceeded under Order 17, Rule 3 C.P.C. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and am of the opinion that there is certainly some merits in the submissions made. 6. It is not disputed that the judgment of the trial court is not in accordance with the provision of Order 20, Rule 5 C.P.C. The trial Court has not discussed evidence under various issues separately and has disposed of the case merely by making a sweeping remark that there was no evidence in support of the plaintiffs claim and, therefore, the suit is dismissed. The learned counsel for the parties have also pointed out to me that there was in fact some evidence on the record in the shape of Commissioner's report and some documents filed by the parties. These have not been referred to by the trial court at all. Therefore, the finding of the lower appellate court that the judgment was no judgment in the eye of law appears to be justified. However, the question still remains whether in these circumstances the court was legally justified in directing the remand of the case and reopening the evidence. 7. Therefore, the finding of the lower appellate court that the judgment was no judgment in the eye of law appears to be justified. However, the question still remains whether in these circumstances the court was legally justified in directing the remand of the case and reopening the evidence. 7. Shri Sahai has submitted that once the suit is decided under Order 17, Rule 3 C.P.C. the question of evidence comes to an end According to him, Order 17, Rule 3 C P C. consists of two parts. Firstly, the court has to form an opinion that it was a case in which it could proceed on merits and then in the second part of the court has to decide the suit. According to appellant the appellate court had no right to order remand of the suit without first recording a finding that the plaintiff had a good and sufficient cause for not adducing evidence on the date fixed and that he should be given an opportunity to do so. In the absence of such a finding, the order of remand was bad in law. 8. The above submission appears to have merit. Before the court remands the case with a direction that the plaintiff should be permitted to lead fresh evidence, the appellate court must record a finding that either the trial court had wrongly proceeded under Order 17, Rule 3. C.P.C. or that there was sufficient cause for the plaintiff's non appearance or non production of evidence on the date fixed Unless this is done, the court cannot direct remand of the case and to permit the plaintiff to lead fresh evidence because such a course would set at naught trial court's order to proceed under Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. It was therefore incumbent for the appellate court to record a clear finding whether plaintiff had succeeded in establishing sufficient cause for his liability to adduce his evidence on the date fixed. 9. Apart from the above, the operative portion of the appellate court's order appears to indicate that it had given an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead fresh evidence. Some controversy was raised about this aspect of the matter and Sri Sahai sought to contend that the court had only directed the parties to present their respective cases which, according to appellant only means that they could advance their arguments on the material on record. Some controversy was raised about this aspect of the matter and Sri Sahai sought to contend that the court had only directed the parties to present their respective cases which, according to appellant only means that they could advance their arguments on the material on record. However, I cannot agree with this submission. The operative portion of the order also clearly directs that the defendant will be awarded costs according to the circumstances of the case. This would be possible only in those cases where the plaintiff was permitted to lead fresh evidence. Even in this appeal, one of the grounds taken by the appellant was that the court below should not have directed the adducing of fresh evidence by the plaintiff. There is ample reason to believe that the plaintiff may have been misled by the ambiguous language of the order and for that reason he may not have been advised to file any appeal against it, Apart from this a copy of the order-sheet of the trial court after remand of the suit has been placed on the record which indicates that pursuant to the remand order, the trial court had n fact fixed a few dates for recording the evidence Therefore, it is quite obvious that every one understood the order to mean that the parties had been given an opportunity of leading fresh evidence. In these circumstances, the submission of the appellant that the operative portion of the order merely directed hearing of submissions of parties and not the production of evidence by them, is not correct. 10. Thus, in view of the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that the order of the lower appellate court should be set aside and the matter be sent down to it with a direction that it should record a clear finding as to whether there was any good cause for the production of evidence by the plaintiff that day. In case the lower appellate court is of the opinion that a good cause had been made out then it may remand the matter to the trial court and give an opportunity to the plaintiff to produce evidence in support of his case on such terms as it may think proper. In case the lower appellate court is of the opinion that a good cause had been made out then it may remand the matter to the trial court and give an opportunity to the plaintiff to produce evidence in support of his case on such terms as it may think proper. Should the lower appellate court be of the opinion that no sufficient cause has been made out then in that event the matter shall be sent down to the trial court merely for writing the judgment in accordance with order 20 Rule 5 C.P.C. with these observations, the appeal is allowed and the order of the lower appellate court is set aside. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.