JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Gupta, J.—The Appellant filed the following suits for dispossession and demolition : (i) Regular Suit No. 150 of 1975, ‘Chowdhary Mohd. Fazle Reb v. Modi Mohd. Islam’. (ii) Regular Suit No. 156 of 1975, ‘Chowdhary Mohd. Fazle Reb v. Amir Hasan’, (iii) Regular Suit No. 155 of 1975, ‘Chowdhary Mohd. Fazle Reb v. Quddus’, (iv) Regular Suit No. 151 of 1975, ‘Chowdhary Mohd. Fazle Reb v. Jagdev’, (v) Regular Suit No. 152 of 1975, ‘Chowdhary Mohd. Fazle Reb v. Ram Ashrey’, (vi) Regular Suit No. 153 of 1975, ‘Chowdhary Mohd. Fazle Reb v. Ram Newal’, (vii) Regular Suit No. 142 of 1977, ‘Chowdhary Mohd. Fazle Reb v. Abdul Sammad’. 2. The issues were framed in the aforesaid suits separately and thereafter all the suits were consolidated and Regular Suit No. 150 of 1975 was treated as the leading case. By a common judgment and order dated 18.4.1983 learned Munsif, Akbarpur (now Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar) decreed the aforesaid suits. Aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the judgment and order dated 18.4.1983, the defendants-respondents filed 7 separate appeals before the lower appellate Court. 3. The Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1983 arising out of order dated 18.4.1983 passed in Regular Suit No. 150 of 1975 was treated as a leading case. 4. The District Judge, Faizabad after setting aside the order dated 18.4.1983 allowed the aforesaid appeals and remanded the case back to the trial Court with the direction to decide all the issues arising in the aforesaid seven suits and further granted liberty to the parties to adduce further evidence if required. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.2008 passed by District Judge, Faizabad in Appeal Nos. 266 of 1983, 281 of 1983, 282 of 1983, 283 of 1983, 288 of 1983, 289 of 1983, 290 of 1983 the appellant preferred the instant appeals before this Court. 5. The Court below has allowed the appeals by order dated 17.7.2008 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court mainly on the ground that the trial Court have omitted to decide all the issues framed in different suits and have only decided the issues framed in the leading Suit No. 150 of 1975 ‘Chowdhary Mohd. Fazle Reb v. Modi Mohd. Islam’. Fazle Reb v. Modi Mohd. Islam’. The lower appellate Court further observed that the spot inspection of the disputed property was also necessary and the evidence has not been properly evaluated by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the lower appellate Court is illegal and has not complied with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. and has placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) Preetam Singh and others v. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, 1978 ALJ 186. (ii) Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad v. Sunder Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 485. (iii) Ved Ram v. Harish Chandra, 2005 (23) LCD 604. (iv) Durga Thathera v. Narayan Thathera and another, AIR 1931 All 597. (v) Gupta Nand v. Bihari Nand and others, AIR 1924 All 100. (vi) Mohd. Yusuf v. Ahmad Miyan, AIR 1987 All 335 . 7. It is further submitted that the order passed by lower appellate Court is not sustainable inasmuch as the order of remand was passed by the learned appellate Court below without coming to the conclusion that the judgment of learned trial Court is wrong. It is further submitted that the lower appellate Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Order IV-A of C.P.C. Provided therein the consolidation of suit and proceedings which also provides that all such suits and proceedings may be decided upon the evidence in all or any of such suits or proceedings. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order passed by the Courts below and other material available on record. 9. The appellant filed seven regular separate suits against the different defendants in the Court of learned Munsif, Akbarpur (now Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar) which were registered separately and in all the above mentioned suits issues were framed separately by the learned trial Court below and thereafter learned Court below consolidated all the regular suits. The trial Court while passing the common judgment and order in the aforesaid seven suits observed at the end of the judgment that all the issues framed in separate suits are not decided separately since all the issues are covered by the issues framed in the leading suit i.e. Suit No. 150 of 1975. The trial Court while passing the common judgment and order in the aforesaid seven suits observed at the end of the judgment that all the issues framed in separate suits are not decided separately since all the issues are covered by the issues framed in the leading suit i.e. Suit No. 150 of 1975. The appellate Court while referring to the facts of the case and the arguments advanced by the rival parties observed that number of issues framed in the connected suits are not covered by the issues framed in the leading Suit No. 150 of 1975 as such the trial Court illegally omitted to decide all the issues framed in the connected suits and further held that decision on all the issues framed in the connected suits is necessary and consequently the lower appellate Court set-aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The matter was remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the issues framed in the connected suits after giving liberty to the parties to adduce evidences. The appellate Court below has also referred to submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents wherein the counsel focussed attention on “several issues” framed in the connected suits which were not determined by the trial Court. 10. It is apparent from the record that the trial Court has failed to pronounce judgment on all the issues which has resulted into a miscarriage of justice. Trial Court under Order XIV Rule 2 is under obligation to pronounce judgment on all the issues. 11. In view of the above, the Court below was fully justified in setting-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanding the matter back for deciding the matter afresh after determining all the issues arising in the connected suits. 12. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable and has no bearing in the facts of the present case. All the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is confined to its own facts and in my opinion they are clearly distinguishable on the facts. 12. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable and has no bearing in the facts of the present case. All the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is confined to its own facts and in my opinion they are clearly distinguishable on the facts. The appellate Court below have not yet decided the rights of the parties finally and have only remanded the matter back to trial Court after setting aside the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Court below committed illegality in not pronouncing judgment on all the issues framed in the connected suits. The appellate Court has not omitted to take stock of the entire material available on record and the impugned order is neither perverse or based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. 13. It is relevant to mention that the lower appellate Court have considered and decided the material question arising in the appeal and have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while remanding the matter after setting-aside the judgment and decree passed by trial Court, as such substantial compliance of Order XLI Rule 31 has been made by the lower appellate Court. 14. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court. 15. In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are accordingly dismissed. ————