JUDGMENT The appellant/defendant has directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3rd August, 1996 rendered by the District Judge, Ratlam in Civil First Appeal No. 6A of 96 thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 1996 passed by III Civil Judge, Class-II, Ratlam in C.S. No. 240A of 92, and remanding the case for disposal of the aforesaid suit in terms of the directions given in the impugned judgment. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff Bherulal filed a suit before the trial Court for declaration of his title, possession and permanent injunction with regard to half portion i.e. 6-1/2 Bigha of the agricultural land bearing survey Number 248/4 (total area 2.280 hactare) of village Bhadwasa, against the appellant. The trial Court on consideration, dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff Bherulal by toe judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 1996. Aggrieved, the respondent/plaintiff filed appeal before the District Judge, Ratlam registered as C.R.A. No. 6A of 96. On hearing the parties, the District Judge by the impugned judgment allowed the said appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the case for disposal of the suit in terms of the directions given in the impugned judgment. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal under the provisions of Order XLIII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of the first appellate Court. I have heard Kumari Madhu Bhatia learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent in spite of service of notice. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to amended plaint paragraphs 6A, 13A and 138 and contended that from the facts stated in the aforesaid paragraphs, the identity of the disputed agricultural land is well established and no further description for identifying the disputed land is at all necessary. The appellate Court has committed an error in remanding the case with the direction to amend the plaint for proper description and identification of the disputed land and giving opportunity to the defendant for amending his written statements and thereafter for disposal of the suit afresh. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the relevant paragraphs of plaint as also the impugned judgment of the appellate Court. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the relevant paragraphs of plaint as also the impugned judgment of the appellate Court. On perusal of the record and the facts stated in the plaint, I found that proper description of the disputed agricultural land is given in the plaint which is sufficient for identifying the suit-land and no further description by way of amendment was at all necessary for the identification of the disputed land for the disposal of the appeal on merits. In view of the facts already stated in the plaint further details for the identification of the land in dispute are not necessary and the first appellate Court has committed an error in remanding the case and directing the appellant/defendant for furnishing further details of the disputed land for its proper identification. The impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court deserves to be demolished. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the first appellate Court for disposal of the appeal on merits in accordance with law giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. There shall be no orders as to costs of this appeal.