Hon'ble BHANSALI, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the courts below. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant Pratap Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent-defendant Chela Ram relating to land comprised in Patta No.177 situated at village Dhanapura, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali on the ground that the plot was owned by him and he was threatened to be dispossessed by the defendant and, therefore, permanent injunction be issued against him. 3. A written statement to the suit alongwith counter claim was filed by the respondent disputing the claim made by the plaintiff and seeking mandatory injunction against the plaintiff by way of counter claim. 4. The trial court framed seven issues and after parties led their evidence, the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was decreed and the counter claim filed by the respondent-defendant was dismissed. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-defendant filed first appeal before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sumerpur under Section 96 CPC. 6. The learned First Appellate Court after hearing the parties vide its judgment dated 19.05.2011 after noticing the dispute between the parties and noting the reason recorded by the learned trial court, came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the learned trial court on issue Nos.1 to 3, which were decided together was incorrect and was liable to be quashed. Thereafter on noting that issue Nos.4, 5 and 6 have been decided based on finding on issue Nos.1 to 3, the said findings on issues No.4, 5 and 6 were also found incorrect and the learned First Appellate Court ordered for remand of the case to the learned trial court with a direction to decide the suit afresh after analyzing the evidence led by the parties properly. 7. 7. Learned First Appellate Court held thus:- ^^mä lk{; dh fdlh rjg dh dksbZ foospuk fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k us vius fu.kZ; esa ugha dh gSa] ek= izfroknh ds }kjk ftjg esa fd;s x;s mij mYysf[kr dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij mä rufd;ksa dk fu"d"kZ fudkyk gSa] tks esjs fouez fopkj esa oS/kkfud ,oa rF;kRed :i ls =qfViw.kZ gSaA fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k dks vihyk.V@izfroknh }kjk izLrqr lk{; dh Hkh foospuk mä rufd;ksa dk fu"d"kZ fudkys tkus ds le; djuh pkfg;s FkhA vr% mä rufd;k ,d ls rhu ds lEcU/k esa fn;k x;k fofu'p; =qfV iw.kZ gSa] ,oa vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 10- rudh la[;k%& 4] 5 o 6 dk fofu'p; Jh fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k us mijksä rudh la[;k ,d ls rhu ds vk/kkj ij gh fn;k gSaA vr% mä fofu'p; Hkh esjs fouez fopkj esa =qfViw.kZ gSaA 11- vr% esjs fouez fopkj esa i=koyh bl funsZ'k ds lkFk vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; dks fjek.M fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSa fd og mHk; i{kksa }kjk izLrqr lEiw.kZ lk{; dh iqu% fof/kuqlkj foospuk dj fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA mijksäkuqlkj ;g vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSaA** 8. Aggrieved against the order of remand, the present appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u) CPC has been filed by the plaintiff. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the exercise of powers by the learned First Appellate Court under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 23 CPC is ex facie beyond the scope of the said provision and the same, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that besides the fact that the learned First Appellate Court very cursorily dealt with the findings on issue Nos.1 to 3 and reversed the same and thereafter without dealing with the entire evidence as such has remanded back the matter to the learned trial court. It was submitted that admittedly no further direction for taking of evidence either oral or documentary has been made and simply the learned trial court has been directed to pass a fresh judgment, which is not permissible in law. Therefore, it was submitted that the order impugned passed by the learned First Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Therefore, it was submitted that the order impugned passed by the learned First Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent though supported the finding of the learned First Appellate Court on reversing the findings on issue Nos.1, 2 and 3, however, submitted that the learned First Appellate Court on coming to the finding that conclusion on issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 deserve to be reversed should have allowed the appeal and should not have remanded the matter to the learned trial court. 11. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 12. The provisions of Order XLI, Rule 23 and 23A CPC for remand can ordinarily be invoked only in a case where the suit has been decided by the learned trial court upon a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal and it is felt necessary by the learned First Appellate court that further issues are required to be dealt with by the learned trial court, in that case the matter can be remanded. The other circumstance is taken care of by the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 23A CPC, whereby, the Court comes to the conclusion while reversing the order in appeal that a retrial is necessary then in that case it can remand back the matter. However, the learned First Appellate Court has apparently wholly ignored the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 24 CPC, which reads as under:- “24. Where evidence on record sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally.- Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds.” 13. The case in hand clearly falls within the four corners of provisions of Order XLI, Rule 24 CPC and it was incumbent on the learned First Appellate Court to itself decide the issues and finally determine the suit and the remand of the case in the facts and circumstance of present case was wholly beyond power of remand as discussed hereinbefore. 14. 14. In that view of the matter, order impugned passed by the learned First Appellate Court is quashed and set aside. The Civil Appeal Decree No.291/2010 (37/2009) is restored back to the file of learned Additional District Judge, Sumerpur, who shall now deal with the appeal afresh on the material available on record, keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore. The record of both the courts below be sent back forthwith. Both the parties shall remain present before the learned First Appellate Court on 05.08.2013. 15. With the above observations/direction, this misc. appeal stands disposed of. The stay application also stands disposed of.