JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral):- This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(U) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order! passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur in Civil Appeal No. 20-N/13 of 2002 on 29.11.2003 whereby he has set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2002 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur in C.S. No. 95/1 of 2000 and remanded the case for fresh decision. The brief facts of the case are that the present appellants and Performa-respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) had filed the suit for injunction against defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). 2. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that their predecessor-in-interest late Shri Narain Singh was co-sharer in Shamlat land and had been in continuous possession of 2-6 bighas of such land comprised in Khasra No. 661/342/1. It is further alleged that Narain Singh had erected a building in the suit land and he alongwith his sons was carrying on the work of Jaswal Baan Udyog1. It was alleged that the proceedings under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act had been initiated against one of the plaintiffs and during the bourse of these proceedings, a tatima was prepared by the then Patwari halqua showing the area, which was under the occupation of the plaintiffs. These proceedings which were filed against plaintiff Jaswal Singh were dropped when it was found that the land was in the occupation of his father Narain Singh. The case of the plaintiffs further is that first Narain Singh and thereafter the plaintiffs have been permitting small traders to set up temporary shops on the said land during Mela days especially during the Navratras. According to the plaintiffs, they have been conducting business over the suit land by letting out such shops. 3. It has been further averred that some of the villagers had started interfere in the suit land and, therefore, Narain Singh predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had instituted Suit No. 110/1 of 1988 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur. This suit was decreed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class Nahan vide judgment Ex. P3. The respondents in the said suit were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff Narain Singh in Khasra No. 661/342/1 measuring 2-6 bighas, as depicted in tatima appended with the plaint. This suit was decreed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class Nahan vide judgment Ex. P3. The respondents in the said suit were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff Narain Singh in Khasra No. 661/342/1 measuring 2-6 bighas, as depicted in tatima appended with the plaint. Appeal against this decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan vide judgment Ex.P5. The Regular Second Appeal filed by the defendants in the said case was dismissed vide judgment dated July 15, 1998 Ex. RC. 4. The plaintiff further alleged that thereafter at the instance of the defendants in the earlier suit, the Tehsildar, Nahan as a member of the Temple Committee, Mata, Bala Sundri Temple, started interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs and thereafter the said Narain Singh filed a suit against the State of Himachal Pradesh, which was numbered as Civil Suit No. 175/1 of 1995. In this suit also, Narain Singh had claimed that he was in continuous peaceful possession of 2-6 bighas of Shamlat land comprised in Khasra No. 661/342/1 as shown in tatima Ex.P1. This suit was also decreed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.2000 Ex.P-8 and Ex. P-9. A decree was passed, whereby it was declared that the plaintiffs being co-proprietors of the Shamlat land are in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 661/342/1 measuring 2-6 bighas, as shown in tatima Ex. P1. An injunction was also granted against the defendants in the said suit restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that thereafter the defendants herein started interfering in the suit land and also started forcibly charging money from traders. Therefore, the present suit was filed. 5. The defendant filed written statement in which he took various pleas. One of the pleas was that a wrong and incorrect tatima had been fraudulently got prepared from the Patwari. It was further stated that the land shown in the tatima is in fact in the possession of the defendant and not in the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendant claimed that the land adjoining Khasra No. 337 has been and is in the possession of the defendant. It was further contended that since the defendant was not a party to the earlier suits, the judgments rendered therein were not binding upon the defendant. 6. The defendant claimed that the land adjoining Khasra No. 337 has been and is in the possession of the defendant. It was further contended that since the defendant was not a party to the earlier suits, the judgments rendered therein were not binding upon the defendant. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 19.1.2001 : (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction, as prayed ? ...OPP (2) Whether the suit is based on mala fide, as alleged ? ......OPD (3) Whether the plaintiffs are taking undue advantage of wrong revenue entries qua the suit land, as alleged ? ....OPD (4) Whether the plaintiffs have no enforceable cause of action to file the present suit ?.....OPD 7. The parties led evidence and thereafter the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and by way of permanent prohibitory injunction, restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 661/342/1 measuring 2-6 bighas, as shown in certified copy of tatima Mark B. 8. An appeal against the said judgment and decree was filed. This appeal has been upheld by the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur and vide judgment dated 29.11.2003 learned Additional District Judge has recast issue No. 3 and framed additional issue No. 1-A and remanded the suit for trial afresh to the trial Court. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been filed. 9. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that the learned lower appellate Court has gravely erred in recasting one issue and framing another issue. She also submits that the remand of the case was not at all called for. The parties were well aware of the case set up by both sides and issues No. 1 and 3 were omnibus issues which covered the entire dispute between the parties. No prejudice has been caused to the defendants due to non-framing of any issue, since the entire evidence has been led by the parties. Therefore, the appellate Court should have decided the appeal on merits. On the other hand, Mr. K. D. Sood learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has submitted that the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court is a well reasoned judgment, calling for no interference. Therefore, the appellate Court should have decided the appeal on merits. On the other hand, Mr. K. D. Sood learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has submitted that the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court is a well reasoned judgment, calling for no interference. He submits that the tatima has not been proved in accordance with law and has only been marked. Therefore, a decree in terms of the tatima could not have been passed. He also submits that the main dispute was with regard to the identity of the land and as no issue regarding such dispute had been framed, the defendant was prejudiced and the learned lower appellate Court has rightly remanded the case. 10. I have given my careful consideration to the contention of the parties. First of all, it would be pertinent to notice that the issues were framed as far back as 19.1.2001. In the order it is clearly stated that the issues were read over and explained to the counsel for the parties. No other issue was claimed by the counsel. From 19.1.2001 till the decision of the suit, the defendant did not file any application or raise any question with regard to non-framing of so-called essential issues. Both the parties led evidence knowing fully well what their respective case and the case of the opposite side was. They have not been taken by surprise. It is no doubt true that the duty of framing the issues is upon the Court. However, non-framing of an issue or the framing of an improper issue itself is not a sufficient ground to set aside a decree. The party must also show that it has been seriously prejudiced by non-framing of such issues. 11. In case Sanjoy Mitra v. Bhupendra Nath Bhattacharjee, AIR 1994 Gauhati 31, the Gauhati High Court held that the law is well settled that non-framing of issues may not be fatal if both the parties go to trial knowing the case of each other. 12. In case Sudhaangshu Bikash Dutta v. Ranesh Kumar Chakraborty and others, AIR 1997 Gauhati 15, it was held as follows :- "It is well settled law that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. 12. In case Sudhaangshu Bikash Dutta v. Ranesh Kumar Chakraborty and others, AIR 1997 Gauhati 15, it was held as follows :- "It is well settled law that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. The findings which is not based on pleading or evidence is not justified. In the instant case there was no specific issue regarding the agreement of sale which was the disputed matter between the parties. But there was a pleading on it as made by the defendant in his written statement. Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court made concurrent and exhaustive finding and turned down the pleadings of the defendant with regard to the existence of the agreement for sale of the suit property. There was a specific pleading and evidence on record and, there is concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The parties did not give up their respective pleadings and the foundation of their cases. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Original Court as well as the First Appellate Court gave their reasoned findings. Therefore, it cannot be said that any injustice has been caused to the defendant in not framing a particular and specific issue regarding the agreement of sale which was the disputed matter between the parties inasmuch as a reasoned finding have been arrived with proper pleadings made by the parties concerned in the matter." 13. In case R.B. Bharatha Charyulu v. R.B. Alivelu Manga Thayaru, AIR 1996 Andhra Pradesh 238, it was held as follows :- "Now the question is whether the matter cannot be disposed of by this Court in the appeal on the ground that proper issues were not framing by the trial Court. The law appears to be that always the improper framing of issues will not result in illegality so as to reconsider the whole thing afresh by framing appropriate issues. If the parties know that particular issues arose in a particular case depending upon such pleadings and the Court gives findings on all such issues and when no injustice is caused to either of the parties, there is no need to try the matter afresh by framing such issues. If the parties know that particular issues arose in a particular case depending upon such pleadings and the Court gives findings on all such issues and when no injustice is caused to either of the parties, there is no need to try the matter afresh by framing such issues. Moreover, although by virtue of Order XIV of CPC, issues concerning facts and law are to be raised distinctly and separately and while the Court disposes of such issues, it has to frame the points for consideration which are to be considered and not the issues as such. This is clear from sub-clause 4(2) of Order XX of CPC which reads as follows :- 14. "Judgments of other Courts-(2) Judgments of other Court shall contains a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reason for such decision." (Emphasis added) Nowhere in the provison, it is mentioend that the Court will either repeat the issues or dispose of the issues technically in that sense so as to render justice. On the other hand, if the Court considers all the controversies between the parties either in their specific form for determination or incidentally, perhaps, the real purpose of sub-clause 4(2) of Order XX of CPC can be taken as complete in spirit. After hearing both sides and going through the records, this Court is convinced that although no specific issues were raised as above, all the controversies stated above arising under the pleadings have been understood by the parties, they have produced the evidence on such issues: and the Court while disposing of issues 1 and 2 has considered the points for determination which arose out of such controversy, Therefore, the matter does not require reconsideration or re-trial after raising such issues for determination. Moreover, this Court while disposing of this appeal will consider all such issues for determination 15. In case Ashwin kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel and others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court! 125, the Apex Court held as under:- "In our view, the High Court should not ordinarily remand a case under Order 41, Rule 23, CPC to the lower Court merely because it considered that the reasoning of the lower Court in some respects was wrong. Such remand orders lead to unnecessary delays and cause prejudice to the parties to the case. Such remand orders lead to unnecessary delays and cause prejudice to the parties to the case. When the material was available before the High Court, it should have itself decided the appeal one way or other. It could have considered the various aspects of the case mentioned in the order of the trial Court and considered whether the order of the trial Court ought to be confirmed or reversed or modified." 16. The law, as is apparent from the decisions cited above, is well settled that where the parties go to trial with knowledge that a particular question is in issue, and adduced evidence relating thereto, then the mere fact that no specific issue has been framed thereon is not a sufficient ground to set aside the judgment. In the present case, also, I find that the parties were well aware of each others case. The evidence by both the sides has been led on all issues including the most important controversies with regard to the genuineness of the tatima and also with regard to the identity of the land. Both the parties were fully aware that these are the contentions disputes between , them. It is true that the issues framed are not happily worded. The Court has framed omnibus issues covering a lot of points. Issues as framed were very widely worded and definitely covered the disputes, which the defendant has raised and which are the subject-matter of the issues re-cast/freshly framed by the learned lower appellate Court. The wholesale remand of the case has always been deprecated and even if the appellate Court feels that some fresh issue is to be framed, and evidence should be recorded then also it should either frame the issue and call for the finding from the trial Court or record the evidence itself. This has not been done in the present case 17. In the present case there was sufficient material on record for the lower appellate Court to have decided the matter. Even if the points for determination or the issues are required to be differently worded there was no need to send1 back the matter for re-trial. The parties have led whatever evidence they wanted to. From the evidence on record it is clear that both parties have led evidence with regard to the identity of the land, the falsity or otherwise of the tatima. The parties have led whatever evidence they wanted to. From the evidence on record it is clear that both parties have led evidence with regard to the identity of the land, the falsity or otherwise of the tatima. The remand order would tantamount to giving further opportunities to the parties to lead evidence.- This optimally should not be permitted unless the situation so warranty 18. In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned lower appellate Court cannot be upheld and the same is set aside. The case is remanded back to the lower appellate Court-for decision of the case afresh on merits. The contentions with regard, to the validity or falsity of the tatima and with regard to the identity of the land have necessarily to be decided; by the slower appellate Court, The lower appellate Court shall decide all questions arising in the case and raised by the parties. 19. Before parting, I would like to make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of any of the issues arising for decision in this suitor appeal and what has been stated above, is only for the purpose of demonstrating that no remand was required 20. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan on 2.5.2005. The Registry is directed to ensure that the records reaches the; appellate Court well before the said date