JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. This appeal by the Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 203 of 1989 (I) of the Court of Learned Munsif (now Civil Judge (Junior Division, Bhubaneswar under Order 43, Rule 1 (u) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the C.P.C) arises out of Order Dated 12.10.2001 passed by Learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Title Appeal No.4/17 of 2001/1992 remanding the suit under Order 41, Rule 23-A of the C.P.G. for fresh trial in terms of directions made in the impugned Judgment. 2. The concluding part of the impugned order reads as follows: "13. From the discussions made & reason stated in the foregoing paragraphs. I hold that in the interest of justice the entire suit should be tried again affording the Defendant an opportunity to amend the written statement of defence by pleading initiation of the land acquisition process under Exts.B/1 & B & other relevant notifications & documents & to confront the contents of Ext.A/2 to the P.W.1 (Plaintiff No.13) on recall under Order 18, Rule 17 C.P.C & allow the Plaintiffs to lead rebuttal evidence. Since this is an open remand, both parties be given opportunity to adduce fresh evidence. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed on contest without cost. The impugned Judgment & decree are set aside & the suit is remitted back for retrial under Order 41, Rule 23-A C.P.C., as per the observations made in paragraph 13 supra. The Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bhubaneswar will make endeavour to dispose of the suit by the end of December, 2001. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 7.11.2001." 3. O.S. No. 203 of 1989 (I) was instituted by Plaintiffs against the sole Defendant State of Orissa for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit lands & for correction of the record of rights in their favour claiming absolute title over the suit lands as occupancy raiyats. The suit lands are recorded under different plots under khata No.38 of mouza Bomikhal in the ROR published in the year 1962, However, in the current settlement of the year 1987-88 the suit lands were fragmented to different plots under khata No.109 of mouza Bhaingar, but draft record of rights was prepared in favour of General Administration Department of Government of Orissa. 4. Defendant filed written statement disputing Plaintiffs claim over the suit lands. 4. Defendant filed written statement disputing Plaintiffs claim over the suit lands. It was asserted by the State that the suit lands were acquired for public purpose in Land Acquisition Proceeding No.9- of 1962-63 on payment of compensation to the Plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that though the entire suit lands were acquired in Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 9 of 1962-63, an area of Ac.0.29 decimals of land out of suit plot No. 18 & an area of Ac. 0.06 decimals of land out of suit plot No. 12 were again acquired by mistake in the year 1973 in Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 25 of 1973 for which Plaintiffs were again paid compensation. It was also pleaded that in the current record of rights the State Government in the General Administration Department have been correctly recorded as owner in respect of the suit lands. 5. Considering the rival pleading the Trial Court settled the following issues: "(i) Is the suit maintainable? (ii) Is there any cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the entire suit properties have been acquired by the Government of Orissa in L.A. Case No. 9 of 1962 of only some portion have been acquired in L.A. Case No. 25 of 1973? (iv) Whether the Plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit property, having right, title, interest & possession over it? & (v) If file Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs prayed in the suit?" 6. In order to substantiate their case, Plaintiffs examined Plaintiff No. 13 as P.W.1 & placed reliance on the documents marked Exts.1 to 5. One witness D. W.1, the Revenue Inspector of General Administration Department, was examined & documentary evidence marked Exts. A & B series were relied upon by the Defendant. 7. On an appraisal of evidence on record Learned Trial Court answered the vital issue Nos.(iii) & (iv) in favour of the Plaintiffs holding that suit properties had not been acquired by the Government of Orissa in Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 9 of 1962-63 & that Plaintiffs have established their claim over the suit lands. Accordingly, the suit was decreed declaring that the Plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit lands & directing correction of record of rights published in the year 1987-88. 8. Accordingly, the suit was decreed declaring that the Plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit lands & directing correction of record of rights published in the year 1987-88. 8. On appeal by the State the impugned order remand of the suit for retrial with directions as extracted at paragraph-2 above was passed. 9. In assailing the impugned Judgment it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the impugned order of remand is not sustainable in law. There was no grievance by the State either before the Trial Court or before the lower Appellate Court with regard to insufficiency of evidence or inadequacy of pleadings. At no point of time so far any application has been made by the State for adducing additional evidence or for amendment of written statement. 80th the parties were given adequate opportunities to adduce evidence which they availed in support of their respective claims on the basis of which Judgment & decree were passed by the Trial Court. In the impugned order of remand the Learned District Judge has found no fault with the Judgment & decree of the Trial Court holding that Plaintiffs have established their claim over the suit lands whereas the State Government has failed to established that the suit lands were by the State Government in Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 9 of 1962-63. Therefore, none of the provision including the provision under Order 41, Rule 23-A of the C.P.C. could have been invoked to remand the suit for retrial advising the State Government to amend the written statement by pleading initiation of land acquisition process under Notification under Exts.8 & 8/1, or to conduct the trial in a particular manner by recalling P.W.1 & confronting him with the contents of Ext.A/2. It was argued that State Government having failed to establish acquisition of suit lands as pleaded by adducing necessary evidence, there was no scope for remanding the matter. Order of remand cannot be made for the purpose of enabling a party to get a fresh opportunity for omission committed in conducting the trial especially in the absence of any prayer for amendment of pleadings or for adducing additional evidence. Order of remand cannot be made for the purpose of enabling a party to get a fresh opportunity for omission committed in conducting the trial especially in the absence of any prayer for amendment of pleadings or for adducing additional evidence. In this connection, Learned Counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Nishi Swain & others v. Bikala Charan Swain: 1986 (II) OLR 654 & in Harmohan Mishra & another v. Anapuran Dibya & ors. 1987 (II) OLR 157 as well as of Karnataka High Court in Balappa Naikappa Naik v. Neelappa Khemappa Kashappagol : AIR 2003 Karnataka 320. 10. In reply, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the state appearing for the Respondent that the Learned District Judge having found certain discrepancies In the pleadings in the written statement & evidence adduced on behalf of the State due to improper conduct of the trial, has rightly resorted to provisions under Order 41, Rule, 23-A of the C.P.C to remand the suit for retrial. 11. There is no dispute regarding antecedent title of the Plaintiffs over the suit lands. Plaintiffs have established their claim over the suit lands by producing documentary evidence Ext. 1, certified copy of khatian of 1913 settlement, Ext.2 series, rent receipts, & Ext.3, notice issued in Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 25 of 1973 by Land Acquisition Authority for acquisition of some portions of suit plots not included in the suit properties. Oral evidence with regard to possession over the suit lands was also adduced. The entire case of the State depended on the acceptance of the stand of acquisition of the suit lands in Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 9 of 1962-63 Record in Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 9 of 1962-63 was not produced in Court. Instead Ext.A record in Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 9 of 1961-62, was produced. That apart State also relied upon Ext. B, Land Acquisition Notification dated 20.4.1960 in which the lands proposed to be acquired have not been described by assigning plot numbers. Instead in the Notification relating to proposed acquisition, four pieces of lands measuring 46.644 acres have been described by mentioning different plot numbers which bounded such lands. Therefore, Ext. 8 is also of no help in correlating the suit properties with the lands proposed to be acquired under the Notifications Exts. 8 and 8/1. 12. Instead in the Notification relating to proposed acquisition, four pieces of lands measuring 46.644 acres have been described by mentioning different plot numbers which bounded such lands. Therefore, Ext. 8 is also of no help in correlating the suit properties with the lands proposed to be acquired under the Notifications Exts. 8 and 8/1. 12. In such circumstance, there is no infirmity in the observation of the Trial Court that though the Defendant categorically averred in the written statement that suit lands were acquired in the year 1962 in Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 9 of 1962-63, instead of producing the record in the said case, Defendant produced & proved Exts.All & A/2 which relate to Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 9 of 1961-62. Defendant also did not plead anything regarding Ext.A/2 which is stated to application dated 3.4.1962 filed by some of the Plaintiffs. Moreover, the lower Appellate Court has not found any infirmity with the findings & conclusion of the Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellants in course of hearing before this Court also has not shown any infirmity in the Judgment & decree of the Trial Court in order to assail it on the ground that in view of nature of evidence adduced by the parties any other view leading to a different conclusion could have been taken by the Trial Court. Therefore, it is evident that there was no basis for open remand of the suit for fresh trial or retrial. 13. Specific provisions have been made in the CPC empowering remand of a suit by Appellate Court for specific purpose under specific circumstances. There cannot be an arbitrary order of remand without satisfying conditions under Rules 23, 23-A or 25 of Order 41 of the CPC. High Court principle of public policy is to bring finally of an adjudication at the earliest. In Nishi Swain & others Vs. Bikala Charan Swain (Supra), it has been held. "3. As the law stands now, power of remand is vested in the Appellate Court under Rule 23, 23-A & 25 of Order 41, CPC Rule 23 is not applied to this case since the suit has not been disposed of on a preliminary issue. In Nishi Swain & others Vs. Bikala Charan Swain (Supra), it has been held. "3. As the law stands now, power of remand is vested in the Appellate Court under Rule 23, 23-A & 25 of Order 41, CPC Rule 23 is not applied to this case since the suit has not been disposed of on a preliminary issue. The consideration would have been different if remand would have been under Rule 25 which requires that the appeal shall be kept pending, & an issue newly framed is to be sent back to the Trial Court for returning the finding. This is, however, a case of open remand under Order 41, Rule 23-A, CPC. In a decision reported in AIR 1986 Ori. 207 (Rushi & another v. Madan 8ehera another), I have expressed: "The Appellate Court is required first to make the endeavour to answer the disputed findings & where in spite of such findings it would not be in a position to come to a conclusion either way, it would remand the suit for fresh trial." I may make it clear that Order 41, Rule 23-A, CPC, should be sparingly used since the public policy is that a litigation is to be concluded finally as early as possible." 14. In view of nature of evidence adduced by the parties in the present case there is no scope to hold that the findings & conclusion of the Trial Court are not based on materials on record. Even when a party fails to discharge the burden of proof, an order of remand cannot be passed in order to enable him to get a fresh opportunity for that omission. In P. Purushottam Reddy & another Vs. M/s. Pratap Steels Ltd. AIR 2002 Supreme Court 771 it has been categorically held by the Supreme Court: "An Appellate Court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by R.23 or R.23A or R.25 of the CPC. An unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life & therefore must be avoid." 15. This Court also, in Harmohan Mishra & another Vs. Anapurna Dibya & others (supra), has pointed out: "21. An unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life & therefore must be avoid." 15. This Court also, in Harmohan Mishra & another Vs. Anapurna Dibya & others (supra), has pointed out: "21. It is not the duty of a Court to necessarily record a conclusive finding & insist that the best evidence should be brought on record by the parties for that purpose The anxiety of the Court does not extend to that extent. If the evidence would not establish the right of the Plaintiff or of the Defendant, as the case may, then the claim having not been proved would not be decreed & there the matter would end. When a party with full knowledge fails to discharge the burden of proof, an order of remand is not proper to enable him to get a fresh opportunity for that omission." 16. In view of the above, the nature of the directions given by the lower Appellate Court & remanding the whole matter for a retrial do not find support from any of the provisions conferring jurisdiction on an Appellate Court to pass an order remand, The parties having exercised their rights to adduce evidence by availing all opportunities of being heard the impugned order directing remand of the suit to be conducted by the Defendant in a particular manner is not sustainable in law. 17. In the result the appeal is allowed & the impugned Judgment dated 12.10.2001 passed by Learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Title Appeal No. 4/17 of 2001/1992 is set aside, Judgment passed by the Trial Court is confirmed, Parties shall bear their own cost. Appeal allowed.