JUDGMENT This appeal is against the order dated 14.2.1996 passed by the lower appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 27-A/94 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh decision after framing three additional issues. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant Dheeraj Singh filed a suit for declaration against the respondents. The suit has been decreed. Respondent No. 1 Madhav Singh preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court heard the matter and considered that three additional issues are necessary for adjudication of the matter. These three issues are reproduced below : ¼1½ D;k fodYi esa Áfroknh dk yxkrkj 12 o”kZ ;k mlls Hkh vf/kd le; ls oknh ds LoRoksa ls bUdkj djrs gq, ,dek= fojks/kh Lo:i dk vkf/kiR; pyk vk jgk gS] bl dkj.k oknh ds LoR; lekIr gks dj Áfroknh Hkwfe Lokeh gks pqdk gS\ ¼2½ D;k oknh dk okn vof/k ckâ gS\ ¼3½ D;k okn Hkwfe ij oknh dk vkf/kiR; ugha gS vkSj bl dkj.k dsoy LoRo ?kks”k.kk dk oknn Ápkyu ;ksX; ugha gS\ The lower appellate Court by the impugned order remanded the entire matter for fresh decision while setting aside the judgment and findings of the trial Court. Ku. Ami Jain, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in a case where the additional issues are framed under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC, the appellant Court should have referred the same for trial to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred and in such case, the appellant Court may direct such Court to take additional evidence required. It is contended that under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC, the direction should have been issued to the trial Court to proceed and try such issues and return the evidence to the appellate Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on AIR 1975 SC 1409 (para 2), P. Venkateswarlu v. The Motor and General Traders. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on AIR 1975 SC 1409 (para 2), P. Venkateswarlu v. The Motor and General Traders. In that view of the matter the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC is material and quoted below : "Order 41 Rule 25 -- Where appellate court may frame issue and refer them for trial to Court whose decree appealed from -- Where the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact, which appears to the appellate Court essential to the right decision of the suit, upon the merits, the appellate Court may, if necessary, frame issues, and refer the same for trial to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, and in such case shall direct such Court to take the additional evidence required; and such Court shall proceed to try such issues, and shall return the evidence to the appellate Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor (within such time as may be fixed by the appellate Court of extended by it from time to time)." Shri Roman, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, supported the judgment passed by the appellant Court. Having heard the counsel for the parties, in view of the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC and the decision of the Apex Court in a case of P. Venkateswarlu v. The Motor and General Traders, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1409 , in the opinion of this Court, the lower appellate Court was justified in framing the issues but the part of the judgment by which judgment and finding recorded by the trial Court has been set aside cannot be sustained. The whole sale remand which has been made is not proper in view of the facts and circumstances and the material on record. The order passed by the lower appellate Court is therefore modified to the extent indicated above and it is directed that the trial Court shall record the evidence on these issues and return the same to the appellate Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor. The order passed by the lower appellate Court is therefore modified to the extent indicated above and it is directed that the trial Court shall record the evidence on these issues and return the same to the appellate Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor. Counsel for the parties state six months' period will be enough, as such six months' time is granted to the trial Court from the date of the receipt of the order passed by this Court. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.