Judgment :- The appellant filed O.S.No.1208 of 2005 in the Court of Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction, as regards running of a chicken centre at the suit schedule premises. After conducting trial, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent filed A.S.No.156 of 2008 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Through judgment, dated 16.03.2009, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court, for fresh consideration and disposal. The same is challenged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the very approach of the lower appellate Court is defective, inasmuch as a specific point was framed as to whether the matter must be remanded. He further submits that the discussion by the lower appellate Court throughout the judgment has centered around the aspect of remand. Learned counsel also submits that none of the findings recorded by the trial Court were found fault with and there was no occasion or basis, for the lower appellate Court for remanding the matter. Sri Mavidi Rama Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court did not take into account, the fact that the applications were filed for appointment of Commissioner and for receiving additional evidence and that the matter was remanded to provide an opportunity to the parties to do the needful. The suit filed by the appellant was the one, for injunction simplicitor. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11 were marked. Clear finding was recorded to the effect that the appellant is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent preferred the appeal. It is rather curious to note that the points that are framed by the lower appellate Court read as under: 1) Whether the suit is remanded to the lower Court? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 3) To what relief, the appellant is entitled to? Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent preferred the appeal. It is rather curious to note that the points that are framed by the lower appellate Court read as under: 1) Whether the suit is remanded to the lower Court? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 3) To what relief, the appellant is entitled to? It was proceeded as though the remand of the matter to a trial Court is a substantial issue, or a point, by itself, little realizing that the appeal is continuation of the suit and it ought to have been decided on merits. The occasion to remand a matter, by the appellate Court is clearly stipulated under Rule 23 of Order 41 CPC. It is only when a suit is disposed of on a preliminary point and decree is reversed in appeal, that the feasibility of remanding the matter may be considered. Other instances are where a specific finding is recorded by the lower appellate Court that the trial Court did not consider an otherwise relevant issue. None of these aspects are taken into account by the lower appellate Court. Indiscriminate remand of the matters would only add to the pendency, apart from keeping the dispute live. From a brief judgment rendered by it, it is evident that the basis for remanding was the filing of application by the second respondent for appointment of a receiver and another for receiving additional evidence. None of these grounds constitute the basis for remanding the matter to the trial Court. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The lower appellate Court is directed to decide the matter on merits. If, however, it intends to remand the matter to the trial Court, the order shall completely accord with the requirements mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs.