JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - This Misc. Appeal is directed against the order dated 18-7-1992 passed by the District Judge, Sundargarh in T.A. No. 15 of 1990 setting aside the judgment of lower court and remanding the case to that court for fresh disposal according to law. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, learned Counsel appearing for Appellants who has taken this Court to the impugned judgment particularly Para -11 as well as to the decision in the cases of Rushi and Another Vs. Madan Behera and Another Purna Chandra Misra v. Udayanath Mohanty and Anr. reported in 2 (1998) CLT 324 and in the case of Balaram Das and Others Vs. Ganesh Karan and Another, . Mr. Patnaik strenuously urges that before remanding the case it was incumbent on the part of the lower appellate court to have given his own views with regard to the reasons and the findings given by the lower court in arriving at the particular decision. It is further submitted that if materials were satisfactory to help the court to arrive at a particular conclusion, a mechanical remanding of the case without examining the correctness or otherwise of such findings by the lower court, is against the proposition of law laid down in the above cases. learned Counsel for the Respondents has however supported judgment of the lower appellate court. 3. Admittedly, Plaintiff's suit was for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. It was specifically pleaded that the Plaintiffs have become the owner of the Plot No. 546 in Khata No. 232 measuring an area of Ac. 0.04 decs. Since the Defendants threatened to encroach over the suit land, they filed the suit for appropriate reliefs. In the written statement, the Defendants denied the title of the Plaintiffs, rather they come forward with a case that the disputed land belonged to the Government over which the public has a right of passage. The lower court after framing issues and after elaborate discussion of the evidence on record came to a finding that the Plaintiffs have been able to establish their title and possession. 4. On perusal of the judgment of the learned lower appellate court, I find there is total absence of discussion in the findings arrived by the lower court. The lower court after framing issues and after elaborate discussion of the evidence on record came to a finding that the Plaintiffs have been able to establish their title and possession. 4. On perusal of the judgment of the learned lower appellate court, I find there is total absence of discussion in the findings arrived by the lower court. The lower appellate court has not given any finding on any of the issues what-so-ever and not only so, he has also not spelt out anything of the reasoning given by the lower court in arriving at the decision as indicated above. Suffice to mention that after mentioning the points for determination by the Amin, the lower appellate court, in Para-ll of the judgment held as follows: In this view therefore, it is not necessary to enter into the merit of the appeal and give findings thereon. Rather the suit should go on remand to the learned court below who shall appoint a Civil Court Commissioner with a direction to the Commissioner to visit the spot, take the measurement after notice to the parties and submit his report on the points mentioned above. 5. In view of the above, I find there is total non-application of the mind inasmuch as there has been non-compliance of the provision of Rules 24 and 25 of Order 41, CPC for which this appeal has to be allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The same is remitted back to the lower appellate court. The said court shall examine the correctness of reasons given and the findings arrived at by the lower court and give a decision afresh. 7. Since the suit is of the year 1987 this Court directs the lower appellate court to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the lower court record. The lower Court record is sent forthwith. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed