JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants. 2. This first appeal from order has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 11.11.2010 passed in Civil Appeal no. 135 of 2008 by the Additional District Judge, Khurja, District Bulandshahar whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2008 passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit no. 21 of 1987 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Trial Court. 3. According to learned counsel for the appellant the impugned order is bad because there is no determination of the issue which is required to be decided by the Trial Court upon remand. He further states that the question whether the temple was constructed by the Saini Samudaya and the defendant was appointed as Sewayat has been considered by the Trial Court in issue no. 1 which was as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the temple in question hence the remand was not required. 4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record in paragraph 6 of the plaint it was averred that the defendant has no concern with the property and temple and he has unauthorisedly filed proceedings under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act against the plaintiff no. 2. To such averment in the plaint the defendant has in paragraph 18 of the written statement stated that the defendant belongs to Saini Samudaya and the temple has been constructed by them and he has been made Sewayat for the purpose of management of the temple. From a perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court it appears that no issue was framed on the aforesaid assertions made in the plaint and denial made in the written statement of a fact in controversy between the parties. 5. The first appellate court while considering the appeal has found that this was an issue between the parties which was very relevant for decision of the suit inasmuch as the claim of the defendant was on the basis that the temple has been made by the Saini Samudaya and he has been made as Sewayat by the Saini Samudaya. 5. The first appellate court while considering the appeal has found that this was an issue between the parties which was very relevant for decision of the suit inasmuch as the claim of the defendant was on the basis that the temple has been made by the Saini Samudaya and he has been made as Sewayat by the Saini Samudaya. The relevant portion wherefor the issue was remitted back to the Trial Court is quoted here under:- ^^vkjkth uEcj 1324@2 ij viuk LoRo vkSj dCtk oknh la0 us O;Dr fd;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ;g efUnj dh Hkwfe esa lfEefyr gS ftlesa blds iwoZtksa }kjk yxk;s x;s iqjkus n`j[kr gS vkSj QqyokMh vkfn yxk;h tkrh gS tcfd tokcnkos esa dgk x;k gS fd fookfnr vkjkth esa lSuh lekt ds yksxks us efUnj dk fuekZ.k fd;k ;g lSuh leqnk; dk lkoZtfud efUnj gS A oknh ;k mlds iwoZtksa dk dksbZ izkbZosV efUnj ugh gS A dFku ;g Hkh fd;k x;k gS fd lSuh leqnk; }kjk fufeZr VzLV ds vUrxZr bl efUnj dk izca/k fn;k tkrk gS rFkk iwtk vpZuk dh O;oLFkk dh tkrh gS vkSj blesa fuekZ.k Hkh djk;s x;s gSA lSuh leqnk; dh vksj ls efUnj dk lsok;r vkSj izcU/kd izfroknh uRFkh flag dk fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS A^^ 6. The first appellate court has clearly issued a direction to the Trial Court to decide the aforesaid controversy by framing proper issue. In fact the Trial Court without framing the issue has made reference to the pleadings in that behalf. When an assertion of fact made in the plaint is denied in the written statement and such fact and its denial are the main dispute then by framing an issue as whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property is an incomplete issue. The issue ought to be specific when the denial is that it is the temple of the Saini Samudaya and the defendant is the Sewayat. It is only then that evidence on that controversy can be led and then decided. In the present case the most relevant issue was not framed hence the first appellate court has rightly remanded the matter with a clear direction to frame the issue as quoted herein above. 7. It is only then that evidence on that controversy can be led and then decided. In the present case the most relevant issue was not framed hence the first appellate court has rightly remanded the matter with a clear direction to frame the issue as quoted herein above. 7. However, in so far as the view of the first appellate court that no further oral or documentary evidence is required does not appear to be quite in accordance with law. Consequently, without interfering in the remand order on the issue indicated by the first appellate court the aforesaid conclusion cannot be accepted and the appellate judgment is modified to the extent that the parties shall be entitled to lead their oral and documentary evidence if any on the issue as indicated above and as framed by the Trial Court upon remand as directed. 8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order is passed as to costs.