JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Anil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the Caveator-Respondents. 2. This First Appeal From Order has come up for admission today. 3. This First Appeal From Order is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.5.2009 and the decree dated 25.5.2009, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Sonbhadra, in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2008, setting aside the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2008, passed by the learned Trial Court in Case No. 142 of 1997, Hradeshwar Nath v. Nandlal and another. 4. It emerges from the record that a Suit was filed in the year 1997 by one Hradeshwar Nath, the appellant herein, against the respondents, Nandlal and Amarnath, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering in peaceful possession over the agricultural property in dispute and the Bamboo Grove. A restraint order was sought, restraining the respondent from felling and cutting the Bamboo Trees. The Trial Court, that is, the IInd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Sonbhadra, by passing a detailed judgment dated 29th April, 2008, had set at rest the controversy raised in the year 1997, that is, about 11 years ago, holding that the plaintiff-appellant, Hradeshwar Nath, is the owner of the land in dispute and the Bamboo Grove, grown on Plot No. 54 (New No. 66) measuring two Biswa. 5. The Trial Court had framed five issues covering the dispute, whether the plaintiff-appellant was the owner and title holder of the land in dispute over which Bamboo Grove situate, whether the valuation of the property in suit was assessed less and insufficient Court fee was paid, whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, whether the plaint was barred by law of estoppel and acquiescence and whether the plaintiff is entitled for some other relief. All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the respondents. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff-appellant has produced the documentary evidence, extracts from the revenue records and Consolidation records to prove his case that the plaintiff-appellant was the owner of the land in dispute and the Bamboo grove. All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the respondents. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff-appellant has produced the documentary evidence, extracts from the revenue records and Consolidation records to prove his case that the plaintiff-appellant was the owner of the land in dispute and the Bamboo grove. He had produced before the Trial Court Jote Akar Patra 5, Akar Patra-23, Akarpatra 45-Ga to 46-Ga, Intkhab Khatauni (Extracts from the Revenue Record) relating to Mauja Dhubahi, true copy of Khasra, Jot Akar Patra 48-Ga, to prove his case that the land in dispute and the Bamboo Grove belonged to plaintiff-appellant and his name was recorded as owner in the aforementioned record and consolidation records. In addition to this, he had also produced himself and on Indraraj Misra as witnesses. 6. The witnesses had stated that the Bamboo Trees Grove (Bans Kote) was given to Hradeshwarnath. The Trial Court had also dealt with the fact that the land was never allotted to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. Even the witnesses of respondents, like, DW-1, Nandlal and Ram Prasad had submitted that they had not filed any objection during consolidation proceedings. Moreover, they did not point out the location and age of the Bamboo Grove. The reason for not cultivating the land and growing other crops was that an interim order was passed by a competent Court to maintain status quo over the land in dispute was operating. Some vegetables, like Brinzle, Tomato and Paddy were grown near the Bamboo Grove. 7. After appreciating the documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court had concluded that the land in dispute including the Bamboo Grove was owned and occupied by the plaintiff-appellant. The respondents had made an attempt to cut some Bamboo Trees, which had resulted in initiating civil proceedings against him. The other remaining issues were also answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. 8. This judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 29th April, 2008 was assailed by the respondents in the Court of IInd Additional District Judge, Sonbhadra by filing an appeal. It appears that entirely a new case was set up before the learned Additional District Judge that the disputed land was owned by the respondents from the time of their ancestors. The plaintiff-appellant’s name was wrongly entered in the revenue and consolidation records. It appears that entirely a new case was set up before the learned Additional District Judge that the disputed land was owned by the respondents from the time of their ancestors. The plaintiff-appellant’s name was wrongly entered in the revenue and consolidation records. For the first time, that is in appeal before the Additional District Judge, a new plea was taken that under Section 123-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, any person belonging to Scheduled Caste labourer, living on any Bhumidhari land and constructed a house thereon, he shall not be dispossessed. 9. Taking into account, the additional and new pleas inducted for the first time by the respondents after disposal of the Civil Suit, solely with the motive to save their illegal action and cutting and felling Bamboo Trees of the plaintiff-appellant and encroaching upon the land owned by the plaintiff-appellant, the Additional District Judge had remanded back the case to the Trial Court for framing five more new issues and to consider the matter afresh. 10. As per learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, no such plea was taken before the Trial Court. A faint suggestion was made in the written statement, which was also read before this Court, regarding respondents being persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and they are having their huts over the Bhumidhari land of the plaintiff-appellant and, therefore, they were entitled to use and occupy the Bhumidhari land of the plaintiff­appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has assailed the order dated 14th May, 2009, while placing reliance on judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court reported in 2008 (4) AWC 3414, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad v. Sunder Singh and 2008 (1) AWC 213, Chaturghun v. Dhanpati Rai and others in support of his submission that the issues finally decided by the Trial Court cannot be reopened by the learned Additional District Judge in Appeal. The impugned order dated 14.5.2009 is against the materials on record and no reasons were recorded while remanding the matter for framing new issues on the basis of new pleas to fill up the lacunas. The lower Appellate Court had acted beyond pleadings of the parties taken before the Trial Court. The new issues have been framed on the basis of an application moved by the defendant-respondent at a very belated stage. The lower Appellate Court had acted beyond pleadings of the parties taken before the Trial Court. The new issues have been framed on the basis of an application moved by the defendant-respondent at a very belated stage. Chronology of events was demonstrated before the Court as to how the respondents had delayed the proceedings and dragged the plaintiff-appellant into unnecessary litigation. The application was submitted leisurely and the learned Additional District Judge had granted the indulgence sought by the respondents. The grounds taken in this Appeal were canvassed before the Court. 12. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Surendra Tiwari, has strongly resisted the motion. He has drawn attention of the Court to Order XLI, Rule 1 (u) of the C.P.C. and put-forth his interpretation of the legal provisions. He has also tried to support the order impugned, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge on various grounds, including, that the respondents were poor persons belonging to Scheduled Caste category. They were having their huts over the land in dispute. The plaintiff-appellant is a powerful person and because of him the name of the respondents could not be entered in the concerned revenue records, though they are having their dwelling house over the land in dispute for the long time. It was open for the respondents to take new legal pleas at any time during the course of the litigation even at the stage of appeal. He has placed reliance on a judgment reported in (2008) 12 SCC 372 , Bachahan Devi and another v. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur and another. He has read Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment in support of his submission. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that according to the provisions contained in Code of Civil Procedure vide Order XLI, Rule 23 etc., the 1st appellate Court was empowered to direct the Trial Court for framing of additional issues. The case was accordingly remanded back to the Trial Court for deciding afresh. The Additional District Judge had taken into account relevant facts and the issues, which were necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the legal provisions, judgments passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court as well as law cited before the Court. 14. The Additional District Judge had taken into account relevant facts and the issues, which were necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the legal provisions, judgments passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court as well as law cited before the Court. 14. In the present case, the learned Additional District Judge has tried to unsettle a settled issue. From the documentary evidence, entries in the revenue record, consolidation records, Akar Patra, Jote Bahis, Intikhab of Khatauni (Extracts from the revenue records) and entries of Khasras, it was amply clear that the plaintiff-appellant was the owner of the land in dispute and the Bamboo Grove. His name found place in all the entries, old or new one, in the revenue and consolidation records as owner of the land in dispute. After consolidation proceedings also, he was recorded as tenure-holder of the land and owner of the Bamboo Grove. The litigation had remained pending before the Trial Court for about 11 years. The respondents had never pleaded or raised any issue during this long period of litigation that they had some rightful claim over the land in dispute or having their old huts over the land in dispute or any legal right to use and occupy the Bamboo Grove. The written statement filed by the respondents before the Trial Court was silent on these issues. Even during contest before the Trial Court, these issues were never raised. A mere suggestion had been made on the basis of some pleadings in the written statement, which are also not specific and clear, that such issues were ever raised during the trial. In the present case, the remand of the matter for the purpose of framing new and additional issues for adducing further evidence is certainly an attempt to fill up the lacunas. The dispute between the parties had already been set at rest by the Trial Court on appraisal of documentary as well as oral evidence. There was no element present in the case warranting remand of the case. The respondents had failed to prove that there is any element to attract the conditions indicated in the Order XLI, Rules 23 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was no element present in the case warranting remand of the case. The respondents had failed to prove that there is any element to attract the conditions indicated in the Order XLI, Rules 23 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court had dealt with the matter in detail, framed the issues after hearing the parties and taking into account the pleadings and the dispute, the judgment and order was passed on 29th April, 2008. There is substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the impugned order dated 14th May, 2009 is based on extraneous considerations other than one specified under Order XLI, Rules 23 and 25. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court has already held that the scope of remand in terms of the Order XLI, Rule 23 is extremely limited. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is squarely covered by the judgment reported in [2008(1) AWC 213 (supra)]. 16. Even in the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is no compulsion to remand every case as a matter of routine. The First Appellate Court ought to have analysed, assessed and scrutinised the factual position and also taken into account what were the issues before the Trial Court and what was the necessity of framing additional issues. In fact the order passed by the Additional District Judge is not a reasoned and speaking order. The Ist Appellate Court appears to have acted on an application submitted by the respondents and passed the impugned order. 17. Here is a case where sufficient document and oral evidence was available before the Trial Court to hold that the plaintiff-appellant was the owner and title holder of the land in dispute and the Bamboo Grove. Entries made in revenue records and consolidation records, old and new entries, cannot be ignored and bye-passed as has been done by the Ist appellate Court. It has imported and inducted new and strange issues to the controversy, which had, in fact, been set at rest by the learned Trial Court. 18. In view of the above, the First Appeal From Order is allowed. The order dated 14th May, 2009 and the decree dated 25th May, 2009, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Sonbhadra are set aside. 18. In view of the above, the First Appeal From Order is allowed. The order dated 14th May, 2009 and the decree dated 25th May, 2009, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Sonbhadra are set aside. The judgment and order dated 29th April, 2008, passed by the Trial Court is upheld. 19. No order as to cost. ————