JUDMENT V.M. Jain, J.—This appeal has been filed against the order dated 3rd November, 2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Presiding Officer RT.C), Mandi, vide which the appeal filed by Sewak, defendant No. 1 was accepted, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for trial afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of the additional issues framed by him. 2. Nand Lal plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and joint possession. The said suit was contested by the defendants. Various issues were framed. Both the parties led evidence. After hearing both sides, suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 17.5.1999. Aggrieved against the same, Sewak defendant No. 1 filed an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing both the sides framed various additional issues and thereafter, after setting aside the judgment and decree, of the Trial Court, remanded the case to the learned Trial Court for trial afresh in accordance with law with the direction to afford opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of the additional issues. Aggrieved against the same, Nand Lal plaintiff filed the present appeal in this Court. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel, and perusing the record, in my opinion, the present appeal must be allowed and the order dated 3.11.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge must be modified. After framing additional issues, in my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge could not have set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and could not have remanded the whole case to the learned Trial Court for trial afresh after allowing opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence in support of the additional issues. Under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC it has been provided that where the Appellate Court frames additional issues, the only course open to the Appellate Court is to refer the same, i.e., additional issues, for trial to the Trial Court and in such a case the Appellate Court shall direct the Trial Court to take 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 there for. In the present case, instead of following the procedure provided under Rule 25 of Order XLI CPC, Learned Additional District Judge had set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and had remanded the case to the Trial Court for decision afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence on the additional issues framed by the learned Additional District Judge. As referred to above, this is just contrary to the well settled proposition of law and even otherwise it is contrary to the provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC. 4. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is allowed and the order dated 3.11.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge is modified. Instead of the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court being set aside and the whole case being remanded to the Trial Court for trial afresh, it is directed that the additional issues framed by the learned Additional District Judge shall be referred to the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall give opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of the additional issues framed by the learned Additional District Judge. It is further directed that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall proceed to try those issues and shall return the evidence to the Appellate Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor, as provided under Order XXXXI Rule 25 CPC. 5. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 2.8.2005 for further proceedings in accordance with law. Proceedings disposed of. -