Judgment : This Appeal from Order takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2012 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 358 of 2001 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded. By the impugned judgment and order, the lower appellate Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9th December, 2001 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded in R.C.S. No. 302 of 1998 with direction to decide the suit afresh by taking into consideration Issue Nos. 1 to 8 framed by the lower appellate Court. 2. An order of remand passed under Order 41, Rule 23A is amenable to appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, can only be heard on the grounds enumerated in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Narayanan vs. Kumaran and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 26 and in the case of Jegannathanvs. Raju Sigamani and another reported in 2012(5) Mh.L.J. 1. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited my attention to the substantial questions of law/grounds taken in the Appeal from Order and submitted that, the lower appellate Court has only framed two points for its consideration. In fact, all the relevant points should have been framed by the lower appellate Court for its consideration/determination. It is submitted that, Order 14 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates framing of issues. The issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by other. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. It is submitted that, at the first hearing of the suit, the Court shall after reading the plaint and written statement, if any, shall proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. 4. It is submitted that, in the present case, the suit was filed in the year 1998 and written statement was filed in the year 1999 and after considering the rival contention, the learned Judge has framed the issues. 4. It is submitted that, in the present case, the suit was filed in the year 1998 and written statement was filed in the year 1999 and after considering the rival contention, the learned Judge has framed the issues. The Counsel appearing for the appellant invited my attention to the issues framed by the trial Court and submitted that, all the issues have been properly considered and dealt with by the trial Court. This suit was filed for declaration of ownership of land Gat No. 113 as particularly described in plaint and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their persons from causing any obstruction. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 was owner and possessor of the land Gat No. 113 and he has purchased 65 Are land within four boundaries as described in the plaint by executing registered sale deed for consideration of Rs.60,000/- on 24th December, 1997. It is submitted that, after execution of the registered sale deed, Mutation Entry No. 314 came to be effected on 8th January, 1998. Thus, the appellant is in possession on the basis of registered sale deed and is also having title. The respondents were obstructing possession and hence, the suit came to be filed. It is further submitted that, in the written statement filed by the defendants, the defendants came with a plea that, the defendants have borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and in view of security, the document came to be executed. The defendants claim that, possession was not transferred to the plaintiff and the Mutation entry was behind the back of the defendants. It is submitted that, from reading of the plaint and the written statement, the learned Judge has rightly framed the issues. The issue No. A pertains to the title and Issue No. B pertains to the possession and the controversy in the suit revolves around these two main issues. The trial Court has considered these issues and decreed the suit. It is submitted that, the lower appellate Court ought to have seen that, issues appears to have been framed long back at Exhibit-28 by the trial Court and there appears, no application by defendants contending that, no proper issues were framed by the trial Court. Thus, the lower appellate Court committed grave error in remanding the matter on the ground that, the trial Court has not framed the proper issues. 5. Thus, the lower appellate Court committed grave error in remanding the matter on the ground that, the trial Court has not framed the proper issues. 5. It is further submitted that, the lower appellate Court ought to have seen that, from reading of the judgment of the trial Court, it is evident that, the trial Court has considered in detail, the claims raised by both the parties. The trial Court has considered the contention of the respondents that, the sale deed was executed in view of security and has negatived the said contention and therefore, there was no need to raise issue. It is submitted that, in the written statement, there is no specific assertion that, the plaintiff is not an agriculturist and therefore, the sale deed is bad in law. There is no pleading that, as per Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. (For short, "H.T.A.L. Act"), the sale deed is invalid. Without there being any proper foundation in the written statement, the parties were not aware about leading evidence as such, there was no such pleading or assertion in the written statement. It is submitted that, new plea cannot be raised at the flag end at the appellate stage when the parties are litigating from the year 1998. It is further submitted that, the lower appellate Court ought to have seen that, remand of case by the appellate Court is governed under Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the appellate Court to frame the issues and refer them to the trial Court, however, there is rider that, when the appellate Court feels that, it is essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits, it is necessary to frame issues, then it can frame it and send it back to the trial Court. Considering the issues framed by the lower appellate Court, it was not at all necessary to frame all these issues and it was not essential to remand the matter back. Considering the issues framed by the lower appellate Court, it was not at all necessary to frame all these issues and it was not essential to remand the matter back. It is submitted that, as per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nendunuri"kameswaramma" vs. Sampati Subba Rao reported in 1963 AIR (SC) 884, where the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case or that there was that mistrial which vitiates proceedings. The suit cannot be dismissed on this narrow ground and also that there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion and neither party claims that, it had any further evidence to offer. 6. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the parties led their evidence by understanding own case and therefore, non framing of issues as contended by the lower appellate Court is not at all necessary. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the issue No.3 framed by the lower appellate Court i.e. Does the defendant No.1 prove that as per Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the sale deed is invalid? It is submitted that, it was absolutely unwarranted to frame such issue since the trial Court has extensively dealt with the said issue. The learned Counsel submitted that, the trial Court while considering Issue Nos. 1 and 2 framed by it in paragraph-9 has dealt with the submissions of the defendants that, the appellant is not agriculturist. It is submitted that, the said contention of the defendants is also dealt with in paragraph Nos. 10 and 14 of the impugned judgment and upon considering the contention of the parties on the point that, whether the appellant herein, i.e. original plaintiff is agriculturist or not?, the trial Court has reached to the conclusion that, the plaintiff is agriculturist. It is submitted that, the said contention of the defendants is also dealt with in paragraph Nos. 10 and 14 of the impugned judgment and upon considering the contention of the parties on the point that, whether the appellant herein, i.e. original plaintiff is agriculturist or not?, the trial Court has reached to the conclusion that, the plaintiff is agriculturist. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, when the trial Court has extensively dealt with the contention of the defendants that, the plaintiff is not agriculturist and after recording the findings has reached to the conclusion that, the plaintiff is agriculturist and therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, it was not necessary for the lower appellate Court to frame Issue No. 3. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, if the order passed by the lower appellate Court is to be interfered with, on the aforesaid ground alone, the said can be interfered with. It is submitted that, the lower appellate Court has powers to deal with the appeal like Court of original jurisdiction and therefore, it was not necessary to remand the matter back to the trial Court for fresh trial. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, in support of his contention that, remand order is not necessary, pressed into service judgment of this Court in the case of BeniramShriram Wani and another vs. Ramchandra Nathalal Gujarathi reported in 2011(2) ALL MR 667 and unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Piraji s/o Sonaji Tidke since deceased through legal representatives Baburao s/o Baburao Tidke and others vs. Amrut s/o Gyanoji Chavan in Appeal from Order No. 143 of 2012 decided on 13th February, 2013. Therefore, relying upon the grounds/substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memo, annexures thereto, provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and judgments cites supra, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, the Appeal from Order deserves to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. original defendants, invited my attention to the issues framed by the lower appellate Court in paragraph-15 of the impugned judgment and submitted that, the lower appellate Court considering the case of the defendants that, the suit transaction was money lending transaction without holding any licence, has rightly understood the controversy and framed necessary issues. 1 and 2 i.e. original defendants, invited my attention to the issues framed by the lower appellate Court in paragraph-15 of the impugned judgment and submitted that, the lower appellate Court considering the case of the defendants that, the suit transaction was money lending transaction without holding any licence, has rightly understood the controversy and framed necessary issues. It is submitted that, the contention of the defendants that, the suit transaction was money lending transaction goes to the root of the matter and therefore, all other issues are required to be framed so as to enable the trial Court to give fresh decision. It is submitted that, the lower appellate Court has acted within jurisdiction and remanded the matter back after proper discussion and framing the issues. The learned Counsel submitted that, where there is a remand order by the lower appellate Court, such Appeal from Order is required to be considered only on the grounds enumerated in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel pressed into service the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Jegannathan vs. Raju Sigamani and another (supra). 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to the contention raised by the defendants before the trial Court and the lower appellate Court in respect of whether the suit transaction was money lending transaction without holding any licence or not and submitted that, no specific issue was framed by the trial Court in respect of the said contention of the defendants and therefore, the lower appellate Court has framed the issue in that respect and sent the matter back to the trial Court. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the findings of the trial Court and submitted that, in absence of issue in respect of whether the suit transaction was money lending transaction or not, the defendants had no proper opportunity either to lead evidence or to put forth their contentions before the trial Court and therefore, the lower appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter back to the trial Court, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that, all other issues which are framed by the lower appellate Court are required to be addressed denovo if the trial Court on remand, comes to the conclusion that, the suit transaction was money lending transaction without holding any licence by the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, relying upon the grounds taken in the appeal memo before the lower appellate Court, the contentions raised before the trial Court and submissions made across the bar and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jegannathan(supra), the Counsel for the respondents submits that, the Appeal from Order is devoid of any merits, it does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration and therefore, same may be rejected. 9. Upon hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful perusal of the grounds taken in the appeal memo and annexures thereto, impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below, judgments cited by the Counsel appearing for the parties across the bar and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jegannathan(supra) and in the case of Nendunuri"kameswaramma" vs. Sampati Subba Rao (supra), the following substantial questions of law will fall for consideration/determination in this Appeal from Order. (1) Whether the Appellate Court has committed patent error by remanding the matter back without considering the legal provision that the Appellate Court is also a Court of facts and law. If at all it had found any evidence lacking it had the jurisdiction to direct the parties to lead evidence on that aspect without remanding the matter back? (2) Whether the powers under Order 41, Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised in a casual manner. Without the judgment and decree being liable to be set aside or perverse? (3) Whether the lower appellate Court justified in remanding the matter back when the parties led their evidence knowing their full case and trial Court has properly framed the issues? (4) Whether the lower appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter considering the scope of Order 41 Rule 23 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure? (3) Whether the lower appellate Court justified in remanding the matter back when the parties led their evidence knowing their full case and trial Court has properly framed the issues? (4) Whether the lower appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter considering the scope of Order 41 Rule 23 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure? (5) Whether the lower appellate Court justified in remanding the matter which from the reading of the trial Court appears to be empty formality as such, trial Court has rightly framed issues while deciding the suit? On the aforesaid substantial questions of law, 'Admit'. On admission, the learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. With the consent of the parties, the Appeal from Order is taken for final hearing forthwith. 10. The trial Court framed as many as five issues for its consideration/determination. The trial Court dealt with each issue by allowing the parties to lead evidence and put forth their contentions and then answered those issues. So far the issue; whether the appellant is an agriculturist or not?, is not specifically framed. However, from careful perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court in paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 14, it is abundantly clear that, the said aspect has been extensively dealt with by the trial Court and the trial Court reached to the conclusion that, the appellant is an agriculturist. Therefore, in my considered opinion, though the said issue was not specifically framed, but there is a detail discussion by the trial Court and the parties were given full opportunity to put forth their contentions, in that case, merely because the issue was not framed is no reason to hold that, the said aspect has not been dealt with properly by the trial Court. Therefore, since the issue; whether the appellant is an agriculturist or not?, was set at rest by the trial Court, there is no question of framing the issue on that aspect. It was open for the lower appellate Court to find out the correctness of the findings recorded by the trial Court on the aspect of; whether the appellant is an agriculturist or not?. However, for the said purpose, remand order was not necessary. It was open for the lower appellate Court to find out the correctness of the findings recorded by the trial Court on the aspect of; whether the appellant is an agriculturist or not?. However, for the said purpose, remand order was not necessary. Apart from above, if the lower appellate Court was of the opinion that, the transaction was money lending transaction, without holding any licence, by the appellant, in that case, it was open for the lower appellate Court to find out the correctness of the findings recorded by the trial Court on the said issue. Though the said issue was not specifically framed by the trial Court, it appears that, the trial Court has dealt with the said issue and rendered the findings thereon. If the lower appellate Court was of the opinion that, the trial Court has not dealt with the said aspect i.e. suit transaction was money lending transaction without holding any licence, in that case also, it was open for the lower appellate Court to examine the findings recorded by the trial Court and pass appropriate orders. 11. Upon careful perusal of the points framed by the lower appellate Court, the lower appellate Court has only framed two points for its consideration/determination. The first point was that; Do the appellants prove that the Lower Court failed to consider the pleadings of both parties and not framed proper issues? and other point; what order?. In my opinion, when the trial Court framed as many as five issues and rendered the findings on the said five issues and also aspect; whether the appellant is an agriculturist or not?, has been dealt with by the trial Court extensively though the said issue was not specifically framed, it was incumbent upon the lower appellate Court to frame necessary points for its determination and then decide the appeal one way or other. The lower appellate Court is empowered to remand the matter back to the trial Court, however, such exercise is to be done after discussion on each issue framed by the trial Court and also findings recorded by the trial Court and after revisiting those findings, it is possible to take different view. However, in the present case, the lower appellate Court only framed two points and proceeded to decide the appeal and remanded the matter back to the trial Court. However, in the present case, the lower appellate Court only framed two points and proceeded to decide the appeal and remanded the matter back to the trial Court. Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus: "107. Powers of appellate Court.- (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an appellate Court shall have power - (a) to determine a case finally; (b) to remand a case; (c) to frame issues and refer them for trial; (d) to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. (2) Subject as aforesaid, the appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein." 12. Upon careful perusal of Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure reproduced herein above, the appellate Court has power to determine a case finally, to remand a case, to frame issues and refer them for trial and to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. Sub-section (2) of the said Section states that, the appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the facts of the present case, the lower appellate Court should have decided Regular Civil Appeal filed by the respondents in the District Court itself in stead of remanding the matter back to the trial Court. It was possible for the lower appellate Court to frame specific issue on particular aspect and then refer it to the trial Court and ask the trial Court to send back the findings on the said issue and then decide the appeal. However, the lower appellate Court in stead of deciding the appeal in the District Court, remanded the matter back to the trial Court, which was not necessary in the facts of the present case. 13. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order is set aside. Regular Civil Appeal No. 358 of 2001 is restored to its original file. The Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded is directed to hear the said appeal on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. 13. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order is set aside. Regular Civil Appeal No. 358 of 2001 is restored to its original file. The Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded is directed to hear the said appeal on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. In case, the lower appellate Court feels it necessary to frame the issue; whether the suit transaction is a money lending transaction, without holding any licence or not?, he can do so, within four corners of the provisions of Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure and adjudicate the said issue. However, it is made clear that, Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded shall decide the Regular Civil Appeal No. 358 of 2001 there itself without remanding the matter back to the trial Court. Since the parties are litigating for considerable period, the lower appellate Court is directed to hear and decide the appeal, as expeditiously, as possible, however, within eight (8) months from today. 14. The Appeal from Order stands disposed of, on above terms. In the light of disposal of the Appeal from Order, nothing further survives in the Civil Application and the same stands disposed of accordingly.