JUDGMENT Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.: This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of a premises tenant. In my view, this appeal involves the following substantial questions of law: (i) When the parties went to trial and for adducing evidence knowing their respective case whether the learned judge in the lower appellate court was justified in sending the suit on remand for framing additional issues on the ground of partial eviction? (ii) When the service of notice to quit was at all disputed in the written statement whether the learned judge in the lower appellate court was justified in passing an order of remand holding that there was lack of evidence in this regard as to service of notice to quit? 2. The suit was instituted on the grounds of default, reasonable requirements, change of user, nuisance and annoyance. 3. In the plaint, it was, categorically, stated that the notice to suit was issued to the defendant through the learned advocate for the plaintiff. The notice was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. The registration receipt was filed with the plaint as part of the plaint. 4. The tenant/defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. 5. Principally, it was alleged that the suit was bad for partial eviction. It was denied that the defendant was a tenant in respect of one room at a monthly rental of Rs.55/- (Rupees fifty five) only. It is asserted that the tenancy of the defendant comprised of two rooms – one pucca and one tile shed. Originally, the rent was fixed at Rs.61/-(Rupees sixty one) only, which was enhanced to Rs.75/-(Rupees seventy five) only with effect from July, 1980. 6. Suffice to say that in the written statement, the service of notice to quit was not at all disputed. The parties went to trial and led their respective evidences. 7. The learned judge in the trial court disbelieved the story of the defendant that he was a tenant in respect of two rooms. However, the learned judge decreed the suit on the ground of default. 8. The defendant preferred an appeal, which came up for consideration, eventually, before the learned Additional District Judge, Fourth Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas. The learned judge in the lower appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and the suit sent back on remand for trial afresh after framing of issues. 9. 8. The defendant preferred an appeal, which came up for consideration, eventually, before the learned Additional District Judge, Fourth Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas. The learned judge in the lower appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and the suit sent back on remand for trial afresh after framing of issues. 9. The learned judge in the lower appellate court held that although the defendant raised the plea of partial eviction, the learned munsif did not frame any issue in this regard. The learned judge in the lower appellate court held that there was nothing in the evidence of the plaintiff/witness no.1, namely, Alo Rani Guha, as to whether the notice to suit was sent under registered post and no evidence was led as to who posted the registered envelope. 10. An issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other party. The whole object is to direct attention of the parties to the principal questions on which they are at variance. 11. Issues are required to be framed for the purpose of having material points in controversy decided and to bring finality in the litigation. 12. However, omission to frame issue is not always fatal. When the parties went to trial fully knowing rival cases and led all the evidences not only in support of their case, but, also, in refutation of the case of the other side, it cannot be said that absence of a specific issue is fatal to the case or that there occurred a mis-trial vitiating the proceeding. When the parties have adduced evidence knowing the respective cases, trial is not vitiated for non-framing an issue. 13. Therefore, no remand order for framing issues is justified. The learned trial judge dealt with the aspect of partial eviction in details in his judgment. 14. Therefore, in my view, non-framing an issue, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is not fatal. 15. The service of notice to suit was not at all disputed in the written statement. Therefore, the requirement of the lower appellate court for evidence as to the mode of sending notice to quit is uncalled for, particularly, when the receipt of the registration slip no.932 dated May, 1, 1981 was filed with the copy of the plaint. 16. 15. The service of notice to suit was not at all disputed in the written statement. Therefore, the requirement of the lower appellate court for evidence as to the mode of sending notice to quit is uncalled for, particularly, when the receipt of the registration slip no.932 dated May, 1, 1981 was filed with the copy of the plaint. 16. Therefore, I am not impressed with reasons given by the lower appellate court for remanding the matter to the learned trial Judge. 17. The power of remand is vested in the appellate court under Rules 23, 23A and 25 of the Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case in hand, undisputedly Rule 23 is not applicable, as the learned trial Judge has not decided the suit on a preliminary issue. The considerations would have been different if the remand would have been directed under Rule 25 as under Rule 25 the appeal shall be kept pending and an issue is sent back on remand to the learned trial Judge for taking additional evidence required and for returning the evidence to the appellate court together with the findings thereon and the reasons therefore. This is, however, a case of open remand under Order 41, Rule 23 A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my view, Order 41, Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure should be sparingly used as it is the public policy that a litigation is to be concluded finally as early as possible. Where, of course, remand is felt necessary after judicial consideration and when Rule 25 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not considered to be adequate, the appellate court may consider the question of an open remand. 18. Therefore, the order of remand is set aside. The appeal is sent back to the lower appellate court for reconsideration. 19. In view of long pendency of the matter, I request the learned judge in the lower appellate court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. 20. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. 21. The office is directed to send down the records to the lower appellate court by special messenger at the costs of the appellant; let such costs be put in before the commencement of winter holidays of this Court for the year 2011. 21. I make no order as to costs.