JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are: A suit under Section 202, Z.A. and L.R. Act is instituted by Sohasit Mishra. On 12.11.1971 the suit is dismissed. He lodged an appeal in Commissioner's. On 29.9.72 Additional Commissioner allows the appeal; order and decree of court below is set aside; suit is decreed. A second appeal is carried by defendant. On 2.7.81 Board of Revenue has upturned the decision; the decree of Additional Commissioner is reversed. Appeal is remanded to Commissioner for decision afresh on merits because oral evidence has received scant attention and appraisal of factual implications has not been adequate. 2. The file reaches Commissioner for disposal afresh on merits. On 2.7.84 Additional Commissioner has set aside the order and decree dated 12.11.71 and he too has remanded the case to lower court because appraisal of oral evidence has not been cogent and convincing. So this second appeal by defendant Lal Bachan Misra. 3. Heard the counsel for appellant. No representation is from the side of respondent. 4. The order of remand by this court to commissioner was to decide first appeal on merits according to given direction. I am sorry for Additional Commissioner who did not take that direction as binding upon himself. He, on his own, remands the case to Assistant Collector First Class for disposal. This is in clear breach of direction. Were this court so inclined, the remand should have been straightway to lower court for disposal. But this was not done. Quite obviously the burden is Commissioner's to decide first appeal according to consecrated principles of law. The order of Additional Commissioner himself remanding for disposal afresh to lower court is indefensible. It is well to remember that responsibility is "to perfect, to improve, to alter when necessary, but in all cases to go forward". It is idle to cause contesting parties to move from one court to another to escape from the tiresome obligation to think, to evaluate, to record factual findings on all matters. The concept of law: Order 41, Rule 23 C.P.C. is not prior to the concept of responsibility, but vice-versa. Two points here are altogether profound and crucial. Say, the order of remand by this court is not sustainable in law. Nonetheless, Commissioner is to take the order, without a pinch of salt, enjoining upon him to discharge the task assigned: to re-decide first appeal on merit. Two points here are altogether profound and crucial. Say, the order of remand by this court is not sustainable in law. Nonetheless, Commissioner is to take the order, without a pinch of salt, enjoining upon him to discharge the task assigned: to re-decide first appeal on merit. Secondly, say, as here happens, Commissioner acutely feels that lower court has failed and faltered here and there and remand will be apt, still, then, he is to take the imperative as absolute and so shall to govern himself by. The prospect is not promising but in necessary to serve a stable principle. 5. This second appeal is allowed; the order of Additional Commissioner dated 2.7.84 is set aside. He is directed to decide first appeal on merits as so directed here to before on 15.1.81. Order accordingly.