JUDGMENT : R.N.Verma, J. Plaintiff/respondent has preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.01.2008 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Latehar in Title Appeal no. 11 of 2005, whereby and where under the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005 passed by learned Munsif, Latehar in Title Suit No. 04 of 2002 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the learned trial court with direction to readmit the suit, recast the issue by adding two issues mentioned in paragraph no.16 of the judgment and try all the issues by giving opportunity to the parties to recall and re-examine the witnesses and also by examining other witnesses, if any. 2. At the instance of present appellant, suit was instituted for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property and for recovery of possession of the suit property, as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, which is one room having area 05 decimals of plot no.23, khata no.1, khewat no.3 situated at village Turam, P.S. Chandwa, district Latehar. The case of the plaintiff/appellant as pleaded in the plaint and relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this appeal, in short, is that the plot in question along with two other plots being plot nos. 21 and 24 of khata no.1, khewat no.3 situated at village Turam were recorded as 'Bakast Malik' land in the last Survey Record in the name of Basudeo Mishra. The said Basudeo Mishra died leaving behind four sons :(i) Krishna Ballab Mishra,(ii) Hari Ballab Mishra, (iii) Rama Ballab Mishra and (iv) Govind Ballab Mishra who jointly inherited the property, left by their father and came in joint possession over the same. Further pleading is that an amicable partition between the above named four sons of Basudeo Mishra was made in which 0.53 acre of lands of M.A.No.107/2008plot no.21, 0.54 acres of plot no.23 and 0.20 acres of plot no.24 of khata no.1fell in the exclusive share and possession of Rama Ballab Mishra. As there was some legal necessity, Rama Ballab Mishra sold 0.54 acres of plot no.23 and 0.10 acre out of plot no.24 of khata no.1 to Prem Shankar Prasad Bhagat by registered sale deed dated 25.04.1972 for a valuable consideration and the purchaser was put in possession where after his name was mutated in the Government Serista. As there was some legal necessity, Rama Ballab Mishra sold 0.54 acres of plot no.23 and 0.10 acre out of plot no.24 of khata no.1 to Prem Shankar Prasad Bhagat by registered sale deed dated 25.04.1972 for a valuable consideration and the purchaser was put in possession where after his name was mutated in the Government Serista. The said Prem Shankar Prasad Bhagat donated a portion of the land of plot no. 23 to the State for establishing a Girls High School and subsequently sold 0.45 acres of land of plot no.23 under khata no.1 to the plaintiff/appellant through registered sale deed dated 28.04.1995 and possession over the purchased land was given to the plaintiff. But there was some clerical mistake and instead of plot no.23 it was wrongly mentioned as plot no.21 and so the deed of rectification was filed and the name of the plaintiff was subsequently rectified and mutated with respect to the said land and since then the plaintiff had been paying rent regularly. So the plaintiff became the absolute owner with respect to the 0.45 acres of land of plot no.23. Thereafter, he constructed one pucca room having tiled roof over a portion of his purchased land and inducted the defendant no.1 Mahavir Sahu as a tenant in the said room on rent. The said Mahavir Sahu with some ulterior motive stopped paying rent from July. 1997, where after, Eviction Suit bearing no. 01 of 1998 was filed in the court of Munsif, Latehar for his eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent but the suit was dismissed, where after plaintiff preferred appeal, which was also dismissed, which necessitated the plaintiff to file present suit. 3. After appearance, the defendant filed written statement with the pleading that though 0.54 acres of land of plot no.23 under khata no.1 was recorded in the name of Basudeo Mishra, but after his death there was never any partition among his sons and also denied the fact that suit plot was allotted to Rama Ballab Mishra in amicable partition. Further pleading was that the entire suit land besides other lands of Basudeo Mishra where joint property of his four sons till much after 1972 and the Rama Ballab Mishra was never in exclusive possession over the plot no.23. Further pleading was that the entire suit land besides other lands of Basudeo Mishra where joint property of his four sons till much after 1972 and the Rama Ballab Mishra was never in exclusive possession over the plot no.23. Resultantly, the plaintiff who had purchased the land in question from Rama Ballab Mishra could not derive any right, title and interest over plot no.23. The plaintiff had never constructed any pucca room with tiled roof over a portion of suit plot as pleaded. Similarly, the defendant no.1 Mahavir Sahu was never inducted as tenant by the plaintiff over the suit property. 4. The trial court on the basis pleadings of the parties framed the following issues : (i) Whether the suit a framed is maintainable ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is barred under the provision of law ? (iv) Whether the suit is barred under the law of ouster and adverse possession ? (v) Is the suit properties under the valued and court fee paid is insufficient ? (vi) Whether the plaintiff has got valid right, title and interest upon the suit properties ? (vii) Is what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to ? The trial court after examination of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant, decreed the suit but in appeal filed by defendant-respondent, the Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the court below and remanded the matter to the court concerned for retrial as indicated above. 5. The appellate court in paragraph no.16 of the judgment framed two issues for the just adjudication of the case of the parties which are as follows : (i) When partition of the properties left by Basudeo Mishra tookplace amongst the four sons of Basudeo Mishra and which property fell in the share of which particular co-sharers (ii) When defendant no.1 Mahavir Sao came in possession over the 0.05 decimal of the suit land or the suit property. The appellate court further held that the above points have not been determined in the impugned judgment and the required evidence is not available to adjudicate the said issues. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that against the judgment of remand , the plaintiff/respondent preferred present Misc. The appellate court further held that the above points have not been determined in the impugned judgment and the required evidence is not available to adjudicate the said issues. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that against the judgment of remand , the plaintiff/respondent preferred present Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2008 and the defendant/respondent no.1 to 3 also being aggrieved by the said judgment of remand preferred separate Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2008. But later on, at the instance of the appellant of Misc. Appeal No.235/2008, prayer was made to allow them to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the appellants, who were defendants in the trial court have already taken part in the proceeding of court below after remand and adduced evidences. On their prayer the aforesaid Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2008 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.01.2016. But the fact remains that the defendants being aggrieved by the order of remand had also preferred Misc. Appeal in this court. 7. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of remand as bad in law, seriously contended that it is impermissible to remand the matter on the grounds mentioned by the appellate court and since sufficient pleadings and evidences were available on record to decide two issues framed by the appellate court, the order of remand is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned senior counsel inviting the attention of the court towards the evidence of D.W.11, who was defendant no.1 in the suit and respondent no.1 before this court wherein he has admitted the Ext. B/2, sale deed executed by plaintiff/appellant as genuine document and other defendants' witness have also supported the version of the defendant/respondent no.1. The said Ext.B/2 is registered sale deed executed by plaintiff was produced by defendant-respondent no.1 himself. It appears that plaintiff had sold the land of khata no.1, plot no.23 area of 5 decimals and when the said defendant has admitted these documents as genuine he can not question the issue that the land in question never came exclusive share of the vendor of the plaintiff. It appears that plaintiff had sold the land of khata no.1, plot no.23 area of 5 decimals and when the said defendant has admitted these documents as genuine he can not question the issue that the land in question never came exclusive share of the vendor of the plaintiff. It was also submitted that the appellate court ought to have retained the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial court for a limited purpose inviting evidence on the two additional issues framed by the appellate court with direction to return the evidence to the appellate court together with its findings and reasonings. Lastly, it was submitted that the remand of entire matter for retrial after recasting the issue and by adding two additional issues framed by the appellate court was beyond the purview of the appellate court when the appellate court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, has not given any findings separately on the issues decided by the trial court. 8. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, Mr. Srijit Choudhary,learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that the court below upon considering the pleadings and evidences on record, has rightly remanded the matter for reconsideration on all the issues including two additional issued framed by the appellate court as there was no sufficient pleadings and evidences on the two additional issues framed by the appellate court. Learned counsel fairly submitted that earlier being aggrieved by the judgment of remand defendant had also preferred one Misc. Appeal before this court but later on, since defendant participated in the proceeding of the trial court after remand, the said Misc. Appeal was subsequently withdrawn and merely because defendant had also filed Misc. Appeal, will not go against the defendant or there cannot be any presumption that the defendant was also aggrieved by the said order. It was also submitted that the appellate court has rightly remanded the matter under Order 41 Rule 24 of the Code. Lastly, Mr. Choudhary supported the impugned judgment.. 9. The question as to on what grounds, learned court of appeal , being a court of fact can remand a matter for its retrial, is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In a case "K.Krishna Reddy and others. Vs. Lastly, Mr. Choudhary supported the impugned judgment.. 9. The question as to on what grounds, learned court of appeal , being a court of fact can remand a matter for its retrial, is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In a case "K.Krishna Reddy and others. Vs. The Special Dy.Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh": AIR 1988 SC-2123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the appellate court should not exercise power of remand lightly unless the award is wholly unintelligible. In another case "Nedunuri Kameswaramma Vs. Sampati Subba Rao": AIR 1963 SC 884 held that there was no need to remand the matter as the evidence which had been led in the case was sufficient to reach at the right conclusion. Further in case "Ashwinkumar K.Patel Vs. Upendra J.Patel and Others" : (1999)3 SCC-161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of remand held that the appellate court should not ordinarily remand a case, merely because the reasonings of the lower court was wrong. Such remand orders lead to unnecessary delay and cause prejudice to the parties to the case. If requisite material is available before the appellate court, it must consider such material and evidence etc. and decide the appeal one way or the other. 10. Obviously, the court of appeal has power to remand a case only under Order 41 Rule 23, 23A, 24 and 25 of the Code. In the instant case, admittedly, Order-41 Rule 23 of the Code has no application as the suit was not disposed of upon a preliminary point. Order 41 Rule 23 A of the Code reads as follows : Remand in other cases : Where the court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers as it has under rule 23. 11. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it would be evident that in order to invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court in terms thereof a decree passed by the learned trial court has to be reversed in appeal and re-trial must be considered necessary. The court can exercise its power of remand which is vested in it under the aforesaid provision. The court can exercise its power of remand which is vested in it under the aforesaid provision. Obviously, the trial court judgment and decree has been set aside by the appellate court but the court has not given any finding on each issue already decided by the trial court and has passed a blanket order of setting aside the trial court judgment and decree. The Appellate Court without giving any cogent reason has directed for re-trial of the suit after recasting the issue including the two additional issues framed by the appellate court after inviting further pleadings and evidences. So it is not a case where after considering the pleadings and evidences available on record, the court of appeal below has reversed all the findings of the trial court. In that view of the matter, evidently, Order 41 Rule 23A of the Code has no application. Under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code, the court of appeal below has jurisdiction to remand the case only where the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact, which the appellate court thinks essential to the right decision of the suit. In such event, the appellate court may remand the issue and after framing the same refer the same for trial to the court from whose decree appeal is preferred and the trial court is required to return the evidence to the appellate court together with its finding and reasons thereof. The appellate court on receipt of evidence recorded by the trial court and the reasons thereof is required to proceed with the appeal and pass judgment in accordance with law. In that process, the appellate court retained the appeal with itself and remitted the matter to the trial court for a limited purpose. But the learned appellate court has not exercised his jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code. 12. So far, Order 41 Rule 24 is concerned, if the court finds that the evidence on 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. 13. In a case "Bhairab Chandra Nandan.Vs. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta : AIR 1988 SC 396 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even though no issue is framed on certain points the parties went to trial and adduced evidences with the issue in mind, the appellate court after resettling the issue is competent to record a finding. So far, the submission of Mr. Jai Prakash to the effect that there was sufficient material on the record on the issues which were in mind of the appellate court, in my opinion, the court of appeal below was competent to decide the issues on the basis of materials available on record. I have gone through the judgments of trial court and the appellate Court and also the pleadings and evidences available on record and I find that the learned Appellate Court should have decided the issues after framing it on the basis of materials available on record and in particular relying upon Ext.B/2, registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff and the evidence of DW-11, who was defendant no.1 regarding genuineness of the said document. 14. In view of the discussions made above and taking all the aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the impugned judgment of remand cannot be sustained. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of remand is set aside and the learned court of appeal below is directed to apply its mind afresh and pass a judgment in accordance with law. 16. However, it is made clear that in the event, learned court of appeal below comes to the conclusion that in the interest of justice some issues are required to be framed as framed in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court, it would be open to it to pass an order of remand in terms of Order 41 Rule-25 of the Code by retaining the appeal inviting evidences and reasonings thereof from the court below for a limited purpose and thereafter decide the appeal. 17. The suit in question was filed in the year 2002, learned court of appeal below should take the hearing of the appeal as early as possible. 18. In the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.