JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. - The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Faridabad vide which the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded back for fresh decision in view of the framing of additional issues arising out of the amendment of plaint. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit seeking a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 21.6.1990. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court was pleased to frame the following issues :- "1. Whether the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property, as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of agreement, as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts, if so, its effect ? OPD 5. Whether agreement dated 21.6.1990 was obtained by the plaintiff by mis- representation or fraud ? OPD 6. Relief." 3. The learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner herein, however, keeping in view the fact that the entire land except land measuring 8 kanals situated in khasra Nos. 72/24 and 72/17 was acquired by the State Government. The agreement was found to be not executable and alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 2,75,000/- i.e. the advance money paid by the petitioner-plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum was ordered to be refunded. However, decree for specific performance qua 8 kanals of land was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The petitioner-plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court before the learned Addl. District Judge. In the said appeal an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was made by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint, wherein prayer clause was sought to be substituted by the following :- "It is further prayed that on acquisition of the land, it may be directed that the defendant No. 1 shall be paid only the balance unpaid sale price amounting to Rs. 4.25 lacs out of compensation paid in respect of land acquired out of the suit land and the balance compensation awarded by the Collector/Court in respect of the suit land shall be payable to the appellant/plaintiff. 4.25 lacs out of compensation paid in respect of land acquired out of the suit land and the balance compensation awarded by the Collector/Court in respect of the suit land shall be payable to the appellant/plaintiff. The Court may also give allowance to the respondent for the services, time and money spent in perusing the legal claim if any." 4. The said application was allowed and thereafter amended written statement was filed. In view of the amended pleadings the learned lower appellate Court was pleased to frame the following additional issues :- "5A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages/compensation on account of acquisition of the suit land ? If so, to what amount ? OPP 5B. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form in view of preliminary objection No. 6 of the amended written statement ? OPD" 5. In view of the framing of additional issues the learned lower appellate Court set aside the decree passed by the learned trial Court and remanded the case back to the trial Court for decision as per law. 6. Sh. R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order passed by the learned lower Court cannot be sustained as it was not open to the learned appellate Court to set aside the decree merely on the ground that the additional issues were framed. The Court were bound to follow the provisions of Rule 25 of Order 41 and get report on additional issues from the trial Court and, thereafter, dispose of the appeal on merit. The Honble Supreme Court in case of P. Purushottam Reddy and another v. Pratap Steels Ltd., JT 2002(5) SC 5 has been pleased to lay down as under : "The next question to be examined is the legality and propriety of the order of remand made by the High Court. Prior to the insertion of Rule 23-A in Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the CPC Amendment Act, 1976, there were only two provisions contemplating remand by a Court of appeal in Order 41, CPC. Rule 23 applies when the trial Court disposes of the entire suit by recording its findings on a preliminary issue without deciding other issues and the findings on preliminary issue is reversed in appeal. Rule 23 applies when the trial Court disposes of the entire suit by recording its findings on a preliminary issue without deciding other issues and the findings on preliminary issue is reversed in appeal. Rule 25 applies when the appellate Court notices an omission on the part of the trial Court to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact which in the opinion of the appellate Court was essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits. However, the remand contemplated by Rule 25 is a limited remand inasmuch as the subordinate Court can try only such issues as are referred to it for trial and having done so, the evidence recorded, together with findings and reasons therefor of the trial Court, are required to be returned to the appellate Court. However, still it was a settled position of law before the 1976 amendment that the Court in an appropriate case could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to order a remand if such a remand was a considered pre-eminently necessary ex debito justitiae, though not covered by any specific provision of Order 41, CPC. In cases where additional evidence is required to be taken in the event of any one of the clauses of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 being attracted, such additional evidence, oral or documentary, is allowed to be produced either before the appellate Court itself or by directing any Court subordinate to the appellate Court to receive such evidence and send it to the appellate Court. In 1976, Rule 23-A has been inserted in Order 41, which provides for a remand by an appellate Court hearing an appeal against a decree if (i) the trial Court disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and (ii) the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary. On twin conditions being satisfied, the appellate Court can exercise the same power of remand under Rule 23-A as it is under Rule 23. On twin conditions being satisfied, the appellate Court can exercise the same power of remand under Rule 23-A as it is under Rule 23. After the amendment, all the cases of wholesale remand are covered by Rules 23 and 23-A. In view of the express provisions of these rules, the High Court cannot have recourse to its inherent powers to make a remand because, as held in Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati, it is well settled that inherent powers can be availed of ex debito justitiae only in the absence of express provisions in the Code. It is only in exceptional cases where the Court may now exercise the power of remand de hors Rules 23 and 23-A. To wit, the superior Court, if it finds that the judgment under appeal has not disposed of the case satisfactorily in the manner required by Order 20, Rule 3 or Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and hence, it is no judgment in the eyes of law, it may set aside the same and send the matter back for rewriting the judgment so as to protect valuable rights of the parties. An appellate Court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule 23-A or Rule 24, CPC. An unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life and, therefore, must be avoided." In view of the pronouncement of the Honble Supreme Court the impugned order passed by the learned lower Court cannot be sustained and accordingly this appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The learned lower appellate Court is directed to get the report from the trial Court on additional issues and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. Keeping in view the fact that the compensation awarded by the State Government for acquisition has not been disbursed in view of the dispute pending between the parties, it would be appropriate to expedite the disposal of suit and appeal. Appeal allowed.