JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner has sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 10th March, 1993 by which the Civil Revision filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was allowed and the order dated 10th September, 1991 passed by the Additional Munsif, Bijnor was set aside. 2. The records of the writ petition indicate that the petitioner had filed Original Suit No. 360 of 1980 in the Court of Munsif, Bijnor against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the upper story of the house in dispute. Subsequently, Smt. Zaitoon was impleaded as defendant No. 3 and on her death respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been impleaded as the heirs and successors. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 21st January, 1982. The plaintiff-petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1982 and during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal the plaint was amended by adding the relief of declaration of title and possession. After the said amendment was allowed, an additional issue was framed in the Appeal as to “whether the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property?” This issue was remanded to the Trial Court for recording a finding and for transmitting the same to the Appellate Court. The learned Munsif then tried this additional issue and recorded his finding by order dated 25th May, 1989. After receipt of this finding, the Civil Appeal was decided by the judgment and decree dated 11th July. 1990. The Appellate Court remanded the suit to the Trial Court to record fresh findings on all the issues except the issue which was earlier remanded by the Appellate Court to the Trial Court on which a finding had been given by the Trial Court on 25th May, 1989. 3. On remand, defendants moved an application seeking permission of the learned Munsif to argue the whole case including the additional issue that had been framed by the Appellate Court. This application was rejected by the Munsif by the order dated 19th September, 1991 holding that the lower Court was bound by the directions given in the remand order and it cannot go beyond the directions and if the defendant was aggrieved by the directions given by the Appellate Court, then an appeal could have been filed but that was not done. Against this order, a Revision was preferred by defendants which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 10th March, 1993. It is this judgment and order that has been impugned in the present petition. 4. Sri M.Islam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that while allowing Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1982, the Appellate Court had directed the Trial Court to register the case to its original number and decide it according to law. The Appellate Court also made it clear that the parties shall not be given a fresh chance to adduce oral or documentary evidence and the Court shall simply hear the arguments and shall record fresh findings on all the issues except the issue remitted to it earlier. He, therefore, submitted that in such circumstances the Revisional Court could not have gone beyond the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court for giving permission to the defendants to raise arguments on all the issues. 5. Sri Arjun Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents, however, defended the judgment and submitted that it does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. The sole question involved in the present petition is whether the Trial Court on remand could have permitted the defendants to argue that issue which had been framed by the Appellate Court and which had been decided earlier by the Trial Court on 25th May, 1989. 7. It would, therefore, be necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of the Appellate Court which is as follows : “During the pendency of the appeal, an application was moved for amendment of the plaint and by way of amendment, the relief of declaration of title and also the relief of possession was sought by the plaintiff. The said amendment application was allowed by my learned predecessor. Again during the pendency of the appeal, an application paper No. 278/C was moved by the plaintiff-appellant thereby praying that the issue be remitted to the Court below for recording the findings on the question of title of plaintiff in respect of the property in suit. The said amendment application was allowed by my learned predecessor. Again during the pendency of the appeal, an application paper No. 278/C was moved by the plaintiff-appellant thereby praying that the issue be remitted to the Court below for recording the findings on the question of title of plaintiff in respect of the property in suit. My learned predecessor allowed this application and framed the following issue in the suit: “Whether the plaintiff is owner of the disputed property” This issue was remitted to the learned lower Court where both the parties adduced lengthy evidence and after considering the same, the Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant is the sole and exclusive owner of the property in suit and Smt. Zaitoon had nothing to do with the disputed property. The matter again came up for hearing before me. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have gone through the record and I find that the earlier findings recorded by the Court below in its judgment dated 21.1.1982 are rather absurd and perverse. The Court below framed issues No. 1 and 2 regarding the title of the plaintiff in respect of the disputed property and instead of giving specific finding on these two issues gave evasive findings with the result that my learned predecessor had to frame a fresh issue on the same point and had to remit that issue for a fresh finding. Now even that fresh finding on the issue recorded by my learned predecessor, does not serve the purpose in this case because the findings on other issues recorded by the Court below are again contradictory with the findings recorded afresh on issue framed by my learned predecessor and remitted to the Court below. For instance, now the Court below held that the plaintiff-appellant is the owner of the disputed property. However, on issue of possession, the Court below earlier held that the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and further that the plaintiff had not been in possession over the disputed property within twelve years. Thus, if I accept the finding on the new issue remitted by my learned predecessor and as given by the Court below, then the other findings recorded earlier by the Court below will have to be re-examined in that very light. Thus, if I accept the finding on the new issue remitted by my learned predecessor and as given by the Court below, then the other findings recorded earlier by the Court below will have to be re-examined in that very light. Even otherwise, in the appeal hearing before me, documentary evidence has been filed and even before the Court below a large number of witnesses have been examined by both the parties before deciding the issue which was remitted by my learned predecessor. It will therefore not be in the fitness of things to give my findings afresh on all the issues and interest of justice requires that the appeal be allowed and the case be sent back to the Court below for recording a fresh judgment. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 21.1.1982 passed by the Court below are hereby set aside and the case is sent back to the Court below with the directions that it shall register the case to its original number and shall after hearing the parties and their learned counsel, re-draft the judgment according to law. It is however made clear that the parties shall now not be given a fresh chance of adducing oral or documentary evidence and the learned lower Court shall simply hear the arguments and shall record fresh findings on all the issues except the issue remitted to it by my learned predecessor. The costs of the suit and the appeal shall abide the final result of the suit. The parties are directed to appear before the learned lower Court on 16.8.1990 for seeking further directions. It is further directed that the learned lower Court shall decide this case within two months positively.” (emphasis supplied) 8. The Munsif rejected the application filed by the defendants for permission to argue the whole case including the issue decided previously on 25th May, 1989 by the order dated 19th September, 1991 with the following observations:- “Further it is to be noted that the lower Court is always bound by the directions given in the remand order and the lower Court cannot go beyond the directions and it has got no authority to question the legality or illegality of the remand order. It is not material for the lower Court whether the order is without jurisdiction or quite illegal. It is not material for the lower Court whether the order is without jurisdiction or quite illegal. The lower Court shall carry the directions given by the Appellate Court in remand order. If the defendant was aggrieved by the directions given by the Appellate Court then he could have filed the appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. In this Court it is not open for the defendant to question the validity of the remand order. The application has got no force and is liable to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. It is to be noticed that this case is pending in the Courts for last 11 years and after remand it is pending for re-drafting of judgment for last 8 months. The defendant can not be permitted to delay the disposal of the case. Today is fixed for the judgment but because this application 474-C was moved on 18.9.91 and it was requested to dispose of this application first so judgment is not being delivered today, it will be delivered on 21st of this month.” 9. It is against this order dated 19th September, 1991 that a Revision was filed by the defendants. The Revisional Court allowed the Revision holding as follows : “Thus it is evident from the above finding that while dealing the case in the body of judgment, it was observed by the then Ist Additional Distt. Judge, Bijnor that findings are contradictory. Hence, the case requires remand. Under Order 41 Rule 23, C.P.C., Court can remand the case for re-trial. The finding of the learned lower Court dated 21.1.82 was set aside. In my opinion, this finding includes the finding given by the lower Court on the remitted issue. Therefore, the finding given in the body of the judgment itself shows that the total case was to be re-examined by the learned lower Court and the restriction imposed in the operative portion is against the finding given in the body of the judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, the issue of remand itself shows that the whole case was remanded for re-drafting of judgment after hearing both the parties. Of-course, as there was specific direction for the learned lower Court not to give finding on remitted issue. Therefore, in my opinion, the issue of remand itself shows that the whole case was remanded for re-drafting of judgment after hearing both the parties. Of-course, as there was specific direction for the learned lower Court not to give finding on remitted issue. Hence the learned lower Court limited its jurisdiction, but in my opinion, the direction given in the order of remand is against the finding recorded in the body of judgment. Hence the restriction imposed is to be lifted, otherwise there will be no real justice in this case..........” (emphasis supplied) 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court was not justified in holding that the operative portion of the judgment was against the findings given in the body of the judgment. His submission is that the order passed in the appeal had become final in view of the provisions of Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that where any party is aggrieved by an order of remand from which an appeal lies does not appeal therefrom shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nainsingh v. Koonwarjee and others, AIR 1970 SC 997 . 11. The submissions advanced by Sri M. Islam deserve to be accepted. The judgment and order dated 11th July, 1990 of the Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1983 is very clear. It provides that the lower Court shall simply hear the arguments and record fresh findings on all the issues except the issue remitted to it earlier by the Appellate Court. This order was not challenged in appeal by the defendants and had attained finality. Thus, in terms of Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure they were precluded from challenging the correctness of this order on remand before the Trial Court. They could not have been given permission to raise arguments also on the issue which had been framed by the Appellate Court and remitted to the Trial Court for a decision. 12. The Revisional Court was not justified in picking up a sentence from the judgment for observing that the Appellate Court intended to remand the entire case to the Trial Court. 12. The Revisional Court was not justified in picking up a sentence from the judgment for observing that the Appellate Court intended to remand the entire case to the Trial Court. In fact a perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Court shows that the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the judgment and order dated 21st January, 1982 had been found to be absurd and perverse and the appellate Court also observed that even the finding recorded on the additional issue does not save the purpose and it is for this purpose that the Appellate Court remanded the case for a fresh finding on all the issues except the additional issue framed by the Appellate Court on which a finding had been given by the Trial Court. This was noticed by the Revisional Court but it made a mistake in holding that the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the issues in the judgment and order dated 21st January, 1982 will include the finding given subsequently by the Trial Court on 25th May, 1989 on the additional issue framed by the Appellate Court. The observation made by the Revisional Court that the restriction imposed in the operative part of the order is against the finding given in the body of the judgment is not justified. 13. The Trial Court, therefore, committed no illegality in rejecting the application filed by the defendants for making arguments also on the additional issue. The Revisional Court committed an illegality in allowing the application. 14. In view of the above, the judgment and order dated 10th March, 1993 passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The Trial Court shall now shall make all endeavours to decide the suit in terms of the judgment rendered in the Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1982 very expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by either of the parties before it. ————