D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment dated 18. 1. 1988 of the First additional District Judge, Puri in appeal directing remand of the case to the Lower court to get the suit land identified through a survey knowing Commissioner and dispose of the case afresh. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. S. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. C. Pati, learned "counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) MR. Mishra submits that the lower appellate court by remanding the case to the lower court committed an error by not delivering the judgment since it had given the positive finding with regard to the identification of the land as well as the right, title and interest of the plaintiff-appellant. In support of his contention Mr. Mishra draws attention of this court to the provisions of Order 41, rules 24 and 25 of the Civil Procedure Code and also refers a decision of this court in the case of U. N. Pani v. State Transport Authority, wherein para 5 of the judgment the division Bench held as follows :"the word 'remand' in its ordinary grammatical and well-understood connotation only means the sending back of a case or proceeding to that Tribunal or Authority which had dealt with or considered it at some prior stage for taking some further action thereon. (Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edn, page 1167 ). A remand implies setting aside the orders passed by the inferior authority or Tribunal and it can be made when the order under appeal was based on insufficient material or that some fresh evidence has to be considered. A remand may be proper when there is some further enquiry to be made or some further evidence is required to be brought on record, but it is not proper to remand for rewriting a judgment when the judgment is found to be defectively drafted or where all the materials were before the Tribunal in such a case the Tribunals commits'a manifest error if it remands the case and not decide the appeal itself. " ( 4 ) THE dispute in the present case relates to the question as to whether the disputed strip of land measuring 7' east-west and 150' north-south appertains to plot No. 585 of the defendants or plot Nos. 591 and 592 of the plaintiff. " ( 4 ) THE dispute in the present case relates to the question as to whether the disputed strip of land measuring 7' east-west and 150' north-south appertains to plot No. 585 of the defendants or plot Nos. 591 and 592 of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendants' land lies to the west of the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title, recovery/ confirmation of possession and injunction. For the purpose of identification of the land though two survey knowing Commissioners were deputed through court, the lower court did not accept both the reports because of defects pointed out by the said court. Therefore, though the court directed the plaintiff to take a third survey knowmg Commissioner through court, the plaintiff took his private survey knowing Commissioner and got the land measured and examined the said Commissioner in the court as P. W. 3. The lower court also did not accept the report of the third Commissioner, but however after giving various reasons it found that the disputed land appertained to the plaintiffs plot and, therefore, decreed the suit. This was challenged by the defendants in appeal and the lower appellate court having remanded the case, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. ( 5 ) THE lower court has given a final decision declaring the plaintiff's title in respect of the land in question. It has also given a finding with regard to identification of the land in question and has also so held in favour of the plaintiff. Order 41, Rules 24 and 25 of the CPC are two provisions which mandate that while judging the judgment/order of the lower Court the Appellate Court should at the first instance make an endeavour to give a finding on the basis of the materials on record and that too only after giving reasons either accepting or rejecting the finding given by the lower court. On going through the records as I find, the lower court has given some reasons for coming to the conclusion that the disputed land appertained to plot-Nos, 591 and 592 belonging to the plaintiff. Though the lower court has not accepted the reports of the Commissioners, it was incumbent on the part of the lower appellate court to observe with regard to the reasons given by the lower court, in not accepting those reports. Though the lower court has not accepted the reports of the Commissioners, it was incumbent on the part of the lower appellate court to observe with regard to the reasons given by the lower court, in not accepting those reports. ( 6 ) THAT apart, so far as the three reports of the commissioners are concerned, they form part of the records. Though the lower court has not accepted them for the reasons given in the judgment it was the duty of the lower appellate court to find out the correctness or otherwise of those reports and to come to his own conclusion either way. This having not been done, I agree with the contention of Mr. Mishra that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Order 41, Rules 24 and 25 of the Civil Procedure code. Further, I may point out that the third commissioner taken by the plaintiff has been examined as P. W. 3 and his report forms part of the record. It was incumbent on the part of the lower appellate court to deal with that report which it has not done. Therefore, the judgment is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower appellate court. It is directed that the lower appellate court shall give a finding on the basis of the evidence and materials on record on the merit of the case and this may be done only if he is satisfied that the finding of the lower court that the disputed land has been duly identified and that too such a finding should be arrived at by discussing the evidence on record and after giving reasons for accepting the finding of the lower court. If, however, the lower appellate court, finds it necessary to hold that the Identification of land has not been established and that it is necessary that identification has to be made by a Commissioner, he is free to examine the reports of any of the Commissioners, particularly that of the third one, and give a finding in respect of those reports and in case he is not satisfied with those reports he may direct the lower court to appoint a fresh Commissioner and get the land identified and ask it to submit a report to it for perusal and final decision and for this purpose the lower appellate court would retain the case record with it for giving the final judgment in the matter. No costs. Appeal allowed. Matter remitted to the lower appellate court. .