Judgment : 1) Admit. Heard the matter finally, by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 2) This appeal challenges the order dated 19.1.2011, passed by the Extra Adhoc District Judge, Kelapur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.181 of 2002. The Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2002, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 1997, by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kelapur, dismissing the suit. 3) The Trial Court framed issue nos.1 and 2, as under (i) Does the plaintiff prove that the suit plot is the part and parcel of Plot No.20 in Survey No.20/2C? (ii) Does the plaintiff prove that the defendant no.2 has committed encroachment on that plot? The finding is recorded that there is no proof regarding the settlement of the boundaries of Survey Nos.20/2A and 20/2C is forthcoming and in the absence of such evidence, the suit plot cannot be definitely said to be a part of Survey Nos.20/2C, the boundaries of which are uncertain. The Appellate Court has reversed this finding, holding that in cases of boundary dispute and dispute about identity of the land, the Court should appoint a local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It has further been held that in order to determine, whether there has been encroachment, it is always desirable to get fields measured by an expert and to find out the area encroached upon. With this finding, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has been set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh decision, according to law after receipt of the report of the joint measurement map drawn by the Commissioner. 4) Shri M.I.Dhatrak, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that such an order, cannot be passed under Order 41 Rule 23 or Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submits that there is no reference in the order of the Appellate Court to the provisions of Order 41 Rules 23A, 27 and 29. It is his further submission that the suit filed by the KES Society for possession over the suit site, has been dismissed on the ground that the said Society has failed to establish its ownership over the suit property. It is his further submission that the suit filed by the KES Society for possession over the suit site, has been dismissed on the ground that the said Society has failed to establish its ownership over the suit property. He further submits that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property from KES Society and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to possession. 5) The questions raised by Shri M.I.Dhatrak, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, pertains to the merits of the matter. The Appellate Court has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Trial Court ought to have appointed the Commissioner in view of the issues, which were framed for adjudication. Hence, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Appellate Court in remanding the matter. There is no question of law, which arises out of the order of remand. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.