The instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of the Code of civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) has been filed challenging the legality of the judgment and order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Guwahati in the Title Appeal No.61 of 2006 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No.3, Guwahati in Title Suit No.37/2005, remanding the title suit to the learned trial Court for giving a fresh decision against the issue Nos.4 to 6 and also on the additional issue as framed by the learned Appellate Court. 2. Heard Mr. P Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent while the appeal was called on for hearing, though, learned counsel have entered appearance by accepting notice. 3. The appeal so filed was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned First Appellate Court, in view of the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC, is justified in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned court below while remanding the matter to the learned trial court for giving a fresh decision against the issue Nos.4 to 6 and also on the additional issue as framed by the learned Appellate Court.” 4. In order to adjudicate the substantial question of law as formulated, it would be appropriate to place the facts in the pleadings of the parties which is summarized below: The appellants herein are the plaintiffs on the file of the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.3 at Guwahati being Title Suit No.37 of 2005 and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs brought the suit against the defendant/respondent seeking the following reliefs:- a. For declaration of the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land; b. For recovery of possession of the suit land by ejecting the defendant and his men and material from the suit land; c. For delivery of Khas possession of the suit land to the plaintiff after ejectment of the defendant; d. For permanent injunction against the defendant and his men and agents from entering into and disturbing the possession of the suit land; e. For cost of the suit; f. Any other relief or releifs which the plaintiffs are entitled to under the law and equity. 5. 5. The pleaded facts as averred in the plaint is that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are sons and plaintiff No.4 is the daughter of late Gajen Ram Kumar @ Gajen Kumar, who was the owner and possessor of a plot of land measuring 15 lechas covered by KP Patta No.159 (old) 5 (new) and Dag No.267 of village Gotanagar, Guwahtai-33, Mouza Jalukbari. The said Gajen Ram Kumar died on 02.07.2003 and on his death the plaintiffs became the owner of the said land by way of inheritance. On the other hand, the defendant is the owner of land adjacent to the suit land on the south. Dag number of his suit land is 262 and there was clear boundary demarcation in between the plaintiffs’ land and defendant’s land. But on 20.09.2004 the defendant demolished the southern side boundary fencing and trespassed into the suit land resulting in initiation of a proceeding under Section 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’ for short) and the said land was attached on 24.09.2004 passed in Case No.299m/2004, which, however, was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup and the learned court stayed the operation of the order dated 24.09.2004 vide order dated 15.10.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No.112/2004. Accordingly, the attachment order was withdrawn on 17.10.2004 and the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit land on 17.10.2004 and hence the suit seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 6. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement taking the preliminary objection as available under Order 8 of CPC contending inter alia that the plaintiffs were the owners and possessors of a plot of land measuring 15 lechas covered by KP Patta No.159 (old) 5 (new) and Dag No.267 of village Gotanagar, Guwahati-33, Mouza- Jalukbari but the land described in the schedule of the plaint is not the land of the plaintiffs. The defendant further averred that he along with is two brothers are absolute owners of land measuring 2 Kathas 12 ½ lechas of Dag No.262 and KP Patta No.141 and another land measuring 10 lechas of Annual Patta towards southern side of the KP Patta land of village Gotanagar, Mouza- Jalukbari and that there is no land of the plaintiffs adjacent to the land of the defendant. But the plaintiffs tried to demolish the fencing of the back side of his house and according to the averments made in the written statement that he along with two brothers were the absolute owners of a plot of land measuring 3 bighas 1 katha 19 ½ lechas covered by Dag No.262 of KP Patta No.141 of village Gotanagar which they have inherited from their late father Kalti Ram Kumar. The Government acquired some land from them for National Highway 37 and the defendant by mutual family arrangement with his two brothers handed over 3 kathas 2 lechas of land to the defendant which he has been possessing since 1985 by constructing Assam type houses, garage, cow shed thereon and hence prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 3. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 4. Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title and interest over the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit land? 6. To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled under the law and equity.” 8. During the trial the plaintiffs have examined 2(two) witnesses and exhibited 4(four) documents whereas the defendant has examined 3(three) witnesses and exhibited numbers of documents to substantiate his claim. The learned trial Court has answered the issue Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in negative and decreed the suit which has been assailed before the learned Appellate Court by the defendant/respondent. 9. The learned Appellate Court answered the issue Nos. 1 and 3 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative. But while deciding the issue No.4, the learned Appellate Court dealt with the matter extensively wherein the defendant has admitted in his written statement that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of land measuring 15 lechas covered by KP Patta No.156 (old) 5 (new) and Dag No.267 of village Gotanagar. The evidence adduced by DW 1 would reveal that Ext. 3, the map produced during the trial relates to his land and in the northern side of his land, there is a Dag No.267. The evidence adduced by DW 1 would reveal that Ext. 3, the map produced during the trial relates to his land and in the northern side of his land, there is a Dag No.267. The plaintiffs claimed Dag No.267 and the defendant does not have any claim over the land bearing Dag No.267. The defendant has further admitted that if any land bearing Dag No.267 exists within his land which is possessed by him then he will have no claim over the land. The learned Appellate Court after going through the evidence on record and the pleadings of the parties has held that the learned trial Court has failed to decide the issue No.4 as to whether the suit land mentioned in the boundaries of the schedule of the plaint is covered by Dag No.267 as claimed by the plaintiffs and denied by the defendant which require local investigation as provided under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC and accordingly set aside the findings of the trial Court on issue No.4. 10. The issue Nos.5 and 6 are based on issue No.4 but the learned trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of issue No.4 without ascertaining the evidence on record and the pleadings of the parties wherein, in the plaint, the plaintiffs have clearly averred that on 20.09.2004 at 10A.M. while the plaintiffs along with their men were repairing the bamboo fencing of the suit land, the defendant and his men suddenly demolished the southern side boundary fencing and trespassed into the suit land and tried to construct a kutcha house thereon forcibly and illegally and on 17.10.2004 the defendant forcibly and illegally occupied the suit land by removing the boundary pillars of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were dispossessed. In paragraph 13 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have averred that the cause of action arose for filing of the suit on 20.09.2004 when the defendant suddenly made the attempt to occupy the suit land and on 17.10.2004 when the defendant occupied the suit land. In paragraph 13 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have averred that the cause of action arose for filing of the suit on 20.09.2004 when the defendant suddenly made the attempt to occupy the suit land and on 17.10.2004 when the defendant occupied the suit land. Therefore the learned Appellate Court has observed that there is no finding as to whether the defendant attempted to occupy the suit land on 20.09.2004 and dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land on 17.10.2004 and occupied the same but the trial Court decreed the suit in absence of any findings in regard to factum of dispossession of the plaintiffs by the defendant nor there is any issue framed by the learned trial Court to ascertain the said fact of dispossession on 17.10.2004 and as such the relief claimed in issue Nos. 5 and 6 cannot be decided in favour of the plaintiff. In consequence thereof the learned Appellate Court set aside the findings of the learned trial Court with regard to issues Nos.4, 5 and 6 thereby remanding the case to the learned trial Court to decide issue No. 4 as to whether the suit land falls as described in the schedule of the land covered by Dag No.267 KP Patta No.159 (old) 5(new) of village Gotanagar, Mouza Jalukbari as claimed by the plaintiffs by appointing a Commission under the provision of Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC and decide the issue No.4 afresh, if necessary by allowing the parties to adduce additional evidence to ascertain the above fact and has framed an additional issue i.e., “whether the defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land on 17.10.2004 as alleged by the plaintiffs” and accordingly directed to decide the issue Nos.5 and 6 afresh after allowing the parties to adduce their respective evidence for the same to substantiate their respective claims, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2006 passed in Title Suit No.37 of 2005 by the learned Munsiff No.3, Guwahati which has been assailed by the plaintiffs/appellants under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of the CPC questioning the legality of the judgment and decree. 11. 11. Now the Court requires to answer as to whether the learned Appellate Court is justified in remanding the case after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court directing to decide the issue No.4 afresh by appointing a Commission as required under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC after allowing the parties to adduce their respective evidence to substantiate their respective claims, further framing an additional issue as indicated hereinabove and decide the issue Nos.5 and 6 afresh after allowing the parties to adduce their respective evidence for the same. 12. Normally this Court is slow in entertaining an appeal against an order of remand, but may do so to examine validity of remand order in facts and circumstances of the case. A glance of the judgment of remand by the learned Appellate Court in the case in hand would indicate that the Appellate Court exercised its power under Order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and not under Order 41 Rule 25, inasmuch as, it is not necessary to set aside the judgment and decree where the remand is made under Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC and in a remand under this rule, the Appellate Court does not reverse the lower court’s decree but retains the matter on its file and only calls for a finding by the lower court or some issue or issues and such court shall proceed to try such issues and shall return the evidence to the Appellate Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons thereof within such time as may be fixed by the Appellate Court. But an order of remand under Order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC is a final order which cannot be reconsidered by the Court and an order of remand under Order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC is appellable but not an order under Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC. 13. But an order of remand under Order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC is a final order which cannot be reconsidered by the Court and an order of remand under Order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC is appellable but not an order under Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC. 13. In view of the above, the Court is to answer as to whether the learned Appellate Court is justified in remanding the case not only on issue Nos.4, 5 and 6 but further framing an additional issue, i.e. “whether the defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land on 17.10.2004 as alleged by the plaintiffs” directing to decide issue No. 4 for ascertaining the facts as to whether the suit land falls as described in the Schedule of the plaint covered by Dag No.267, KP Patta No.159(old), 5(new) of village Gotanagar, Mouza Jalukbari, Guwahati 33 as claimed by the plaintiffs by appointing a commission as required under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC allowing the parties to adduce additional evidence to ascertain the above fact which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned appellate Court thought it fit to adjudicate the matter finally and effectually. 14. Since the learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and remanded the matter on the facts as indicated hereinabove, this Court on scrutiny does not find any infirmity or injustice committed by the First Appellate Court resulting in miscarriage of justice. That being the position, no interference with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court is called for. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed save and except with the direction that the learned trial Court on remand would dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within 6(six) months considering the fact that the title suit is of the year 2005. The parties are left to bear their own costs. _____________