JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels. 2. These two appeals have been filed against common order dated 27/10/1998 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner in appeal no. 10/86 (Mohd. Hussain v. Jan Mohd.) and appeal no.41/86 (Mohd. Hussain v. Amiya) . 3. Learned appellate court after hearing both the parties held that the two suits in question out of which these appeals have arisen, namely; suit no. 27/78 (282/78) (Mohd. Hussain v. Naseera & Ors.) which was decreed on 21/5/1984 & suit no.189/82 (332/78) deserve to be tried separately and afresh from the stage as it obtained on 14/2/1983, when the trial of two suits were consolidated, and separate decrees would be passed in the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27/10/2998, the present appeals have been filed before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jitendra Chopra urged that the trial of both the suits was consolidated vide order dated 14/2/1983 and, thereafter, on the basis of evidence, which came before the learned trial court in the eviction suit filed by Jan Mohd., the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant for partition was decreed and that decree could not have been set aside as has been done by the impugned order. He submitted that under the garb of remand, the valid decree has been set aside which is illegal and present appeals, therefore, deserve to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Lalit Vyas urged that the remand of suits for trial to respective courts is justified in law because in partition suit no evidence was led before the trial court and on the basis of evidence, which came before the trial court in a eviction suit, which is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the title in a partition suit, as the question of title is not relevant in the eviction matter, the said suit was decreed and, therefore, the learned appellate court was justified in remanding both the suits to learned trial court. 7. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 27/10/1998, this Court finds considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.Lalit Vyas. 7. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 27/10/1998, this Court finds considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.Lalit Vyas. Retrial from the respective stage as on 14/2/1983 as directed in the impugned order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of any of the parties because consolidation of two suits of different nature resulted in one decree on the basis of evidence led in another suit, namely eviction suit. In fact, such trial should not have been consolidated at all. However, the learned appellate court considering these aspects of the matter, remanded the cases back to learned trial court by the impugned order and rightly so, in the opinion of this Court. 8. Consequently, any challenge to such remand order is misconceived and the trial being unnecessarily delayed on account of pendency of these appeal before this Court for last more than 11 years. 9. Accordingly, both these appeals being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to trial court and record, if any, received here may be remitted forthwith for expeditious trial of both the suits separately. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******