JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order dated 27th November, 2001. It appears from the order dated 27th November, 2001 that the appellant-defendant submitted an application under Order 8 Rule 8 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, which was allowed by the First Appellate Court on 10th August, 1999 and defendant-appellant- petitioner submitted written statement. The appellate Court permitted rejoinder from the plaintiff and the appellate Court, thereafter, straightway remanded the matter to the trial Court after framing three issues. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate Court committed serious illegality in not framing the complete issues and has not applied its mind whether any issue is required to amend or delete in the light of the grounds taken by the appellant-petitioner in his appeal. Therefore, if this order dated 27th November, 2001 is allowed to stand, it will lead the multiplicity of the proceedings and piecemeal trial by the trial Court because of this order dated 27th November, 2001. The trial Court will determine the issues framed in the order dated 27th November, 2001 and when this matter will come back to the First Appellate Court, the appellate Court may pass order amending, deleting or framing more issues, which may require evidence of the parties and necessitating the remand of the matter for deciding those issues. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the petitioner has not placed on record that relevant copies of the order-sheets has not disclosed that whether any application for amending issues has been decided by the appellate Court or not, therefore, the revision petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. At the same time learned counsel submits that he is also not aware whether any order of such nature was passed by the First Appellate Court. 4. The submissions of learned counsel for the respondent deserve to be rejected merely on the ground that the respondent arguing a case cannot take a plea that he is not aware of the proceedings taken in the Court below. 4. The submissions of learned counsel for the respondent deserve to be rejected merely on the ground that the respondent arguing a case cannot take a plea that he is not aware of the proceedings taken in the Court below. The grounds taken in the revision petition could have been agitated by the respondent by showing or filing the copies of the order-sheets and the respondent could have pointed out that any order has been passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the point in controversy has already been decided by the Court below or the orders have of such nature, which disentitled the petitioner from challenging the impugned order or the order if passed by this Court, it will be against any other binding order of the Court below. It is absolutely improper for the Advocate to say that he is not aware of the Court proceeding, therefore, Court should enquire and parties will not assist. 5. A bare perusal of the facts mentioned in the revision petition as well as from the certified copies of the order-sheets already placed on record by the petitioner reveal that the Court should have applied its mind before remitting the matter to the trial Court, whether already framed issues require amendment, alteration, modification or required to be deleted or new issues required to be framed after going through the merit of the appeal and, therefore, should have passed the appropriate order so that in case of order of remit, the trial Court may decide the factual aspects and the issues in accordance with law in one time avoiding any second chance of remitting the matter, which will absolutely be unjust and improper. 6. In view of the above reasonings, the order of the First Appellate Court dated 27th November, 2001 is set aside. The first Appellate Court is directed to frame the issues afresh, if needed, after hearing both the parties, which can be framed in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court is setting aside the order dated 27th November, 2001 only and none of any other orders passed by the Court below. 7. The first Appellate Court is directed to frame the issues afresh, if needed, after hearing both the parties, which can be framed in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court is setting aside the order dated 27th November, 2001 only and none of any other orders passed by the Court below. 7. The appellate Court is, therefore, directed to look into the entire record and after hearing both the parties on the basis of the material available on record and on the basis of the pleas, which are acceptable to the appellate Court, may frame proper issues, in case, they are needed and, thereafter, the appellate Court may remit the matter to the trial Court. In case the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that no more issues than the issues mentioned in the order dated 27th November, 2001, are needed then the appellate Court may pass such order because of the reason that the order dated 27th November, 2001 merely states that since the amendment in the written statement was permitted and rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff, therefore, only the issues mentioned in the order dated 27th November, 2001 have been framed. 8. It is also made clear that whether the entire matter required re-trial after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court has not been decided by the appellate Court in the impugned order and, therefore, these issues are still alive and the petitioner-appellant before the First Appellate Court may raise his arguments regarding wholesome remand of the suit and the First Appellate Court will be free to pass any order, but after giving full opportunity to the respondent-plaintiff on this issue and will examine the matter uninfluenced by any observations of this Court in this order. 9. The revision of the petitioner is, therefore, allowed with above directions.Revision allowed. *******