Honble YADAV, J. – The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 1.8.97 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.1.88 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Original Civil Suit No. 93 of 1979, remanding the case for fresh decision on issues No 2, 5 and 7 on the basis ofevidence already adduced by the parties. (2). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. (3). Perused the judgments under appeal. (4). With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant appeal is finally heard and disposed of at admission stage without requisitioning the recordof both the courts-below. (5). In the present appeal, a dominant question arises for consideration before me is whether the order of remand under appeal should be treated under O. 41, R.23, CPC or under O.41, R.23A, CPC or under O. 41 R. 25 CPC. (6). It is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that the order underappeal cannot be treated to be a remand order within the meaning of O. 41 R. 23, CPC as the learned trial court has not disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point. It is further conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that present remand order under appeal cannot be treated to be an order of remand as envisaged under O. 41, R. 25, CPC in as much as there is no direction by the learned appellate court to the learned trial court to take additional evidence and return the evidence to it together with its findings therefor. (7). In view of the aforesaid concession given by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question remains as to whether the remand order under appeal can be treated to be a remand order within the meaning of O. 41 R. 23A CPC which clearly provides that where the court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point and the decree is rever-sed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary, the appellate court shall have the same powers as it has under O. 41, R. 23 CPC. (8). Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. (8). Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. D.S. Shishodia urged before me that, as a matter of fact, after deciding issue No. 1 regarding bona fide necessity of the plaintiff-landlord, the learned trial court while deciding issue No. 2 arrived at aconclusion that as issue No. 1 has been decided against the plaintiff-landlord, therefore, the question of comparative hardship under issue No. 2 is not required to be decided. Thus, according to Shri Shishodia, the learned trial court omitted to decide issue No 2, therefore, the learned first appellate court after setting aside the finding recorded by the learned trial court on issue No. 1 regarding bona fide nece-ssity of the plaintiff-landlord has no option except to remand the case to the learned trial court to decide issue No. 2. As issues No. 5 and 7 are interlinked with issue No. 2, hence, the case was remanded by the learned first appellate court to the learned trial court to decide these issues on the basis of evidence already adduced by the parties before it. (9). There is no quarrel with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Shishodia that the learned trial court has omitted to decide issue No. 2, hence, learned first appellate court has jurisdiction to remand the case under O. 41 R. 25 of CPC with direction to the learned trial court to take additional evidence and return the evidence to it together with its findings thereon and thereasons therefore. But the learned first appellate court has no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court and then thereafter remand the case to the learned trial court to give its decision on some issues on the basis of evidence already adduced by the parties under O. 41 R. 25 CPC. The learned first appellate court can remand the case to the learned trial court underO. 41, R. 25, CPC before expressing its opinion on the findings recorded by the learned trial court on any issue and before setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court. (10). Here in the present case, before remanding Issues No. 2, 5 and 7 to the learned trial court the learned first appellate court had already set aside the judg-ment and decree passed by the learned trial court, which makes remand order under appeal per se illegal and without jurisdiction. (11). (10). Here in the present case, before remanding Issues No. 2, 5 and 7 to the learned trial court the learned first appellate court had already set aside the judg-ment and decree passed by the learned trial court, which makes remand order under appeal per se illegal and without jurisdiction. (11). It is to be imbibed that once the learned first appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court then it ought to have remanded the case to the learned trial court with a direction to re-admit the suitunder its original number in the register of Civil Suits and proceed to determine the suit either on the basis of evidence already recorded during trial of the original civil suit or with a direction to record further evidence after remand on all issues or on some specific issues, as the case may be. I am of the view that where the evidence upon the records are found to be sufficient by the learned first appellate courts to enable them to pronounce judgments on merits, it can do so by pressing into service the provisions postulated under O. 41, R. 245 CPC in stead of remanding the suit to the trial courts. (12). From the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the order of remand under appeal passed by learned first appellate court is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. (13). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned first appellate court has wrongly rejected his application moved under O. 41 R. 27, CPC. I am of the view that rejection of application under O. 41 R. 27, CPChas already merged in the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court. As the judgment and decree under appeal is held to be illegal and without jurisdiction by this court, therefore, the rejection order under O. 41 R. 27 CPC will ipso facto deemed to be set aside with a direction to the learned first appellate court to decide the said application under O. 41 R. 27, CPC afresh on meritin accordance with law. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed and the order of remand dated 1.8.97 is hereby set aside. The case remanded back to the learned first appellate court to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law expeditiously. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed and the order of remand dated 1.8.97 is hereby set aside. The case remanded back to the learned first appellate court to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law expeditiously. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. _