JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Kumar, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the appellants, Sri Mahadev Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and 7 others by which the judgment/decree dated 19.1.2017 passed by 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2014 (Sri Mata Deen and others v. Sri Mahadev Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Konch and others) partly allowing the civil appeal and remanding the suit to the trial Court arising out of the judgment/decree dated 27.2.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Coach, District Jalaun in Original Suit No. 167 of 1990 has been challenged. 2. By means of present appeal the appellants have prayed to call for the records of the case, set aside the impugned judgement/decree dated 19.1.2017, to issue direction to the First Appellate Court to decide the first appeal on merit, allow the present appeal and pass any other orders. 3. I have heard Sri Dharmpal Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.K. Dubey, Advocate counsel for the appellants and Sri S.P. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-appellants had filed the Original Suit No. 167 of 1990 (Smt. Mahadev Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and others v. Mata Deen (since deceased) through legal heirs and others) for permanent injunction and for possession of the property in suit as described in the plaint. The suit after contested by the defendants was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalaun at Orai in Original Suit No. 167 of 1990. The defendants were restrained to interfere in the disputed property being Gata No. 1958/area 87 decimal and handed over the possession of the aforesaid premises to the plaintiffs within a period of 60 days. 5. The defendants-respondents being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance preferred a civil appeal being Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2014 before the Court of District Judge, Jalaun at Orai. vide judgment and order dated 19.1.2017, the lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance dated 27.2.2014 and 7.3.2014 respectively and has remanded the matter for decision afresh by directing to frame a new issue with regard to adverse possession and to record findings on all issues separately. vide judgment and order dated 19.1.2017, the lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance dated 27.2.2014 and 7.3.2014 respectively and has remanded the matter for decision afresh by directing to frame a new issue with regard to adverse possession and to record findings on all issues separately. 6. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment/decree dated 19.1.2017 passed by the lower appellant Court that the plaintiffs-appellants have filed the above mentioned first appeal from the order under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘C.P.C.’) 7. It is pertinent to mention here that counsel for the parties have agreed for disposal of the present appeal at the admission stage only on the basis of record which is available before this Court. 8. Sri Dharampla Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that there is no bar restraining the trial Court to record the findings by clubbing the issues, if they are dependent on each other, and therefore, the trial Court was fully justified in deciding the issues Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 together and the lower appellate Court, therefore, is not entitled to set aside the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has failed to rightly appreciate the fact and evidence in law and has not framed issue on the question of adverse possession. 9. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the defendants-respondents have never raised the question of not framing the issue of adverse possession in their grounds of appeal filed before the appellate Court against the judgment of the trial Court. It is further argued that the lower appellate Court committed illegality by running away from the responsibility, inasmuch as, entire records were available before it and lower appellate Court is fully entitled to decide all the questions by itself and there was no necessity at all to remand the matter to the trial Court. It is further argued that the lower appellate Court committed illegality by running away from the responsibility, inasmuch as, entire records were available before it and lower appellate Court is fully entitled to decide all the questions by itself and there was no necessity at all to remand the matter to the trial Court. It is further submitted that the original suit being Suit No. 167 of 1990 has been filed in the year 1990 and the matter was travelling from one Court to another and it reaches to the Court of lower appellate Court after a gap of more than about 24 years and now the institution of suit and the hearing of the present appeal, the period of about 27 years is already expired. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the lower appellate Court is not justified in setting aside the judgment of the trial Court without setting aside the finding of the trial Court and thus has argued that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is unsustainable as order of remand clearly amounts to give an opportunity to the defendants and respondents to fill the lacuna in their case which were not for the purpose of remanding. 11. On the other hand, Sri S.P. Lal, counsel for the respondents-defendants has defended the judgement of the lower appellate Court and has submitted that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is merely a remand order which do not require any interference, at this stage, by this Court in the present appeal. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents that the lower appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter for recording the findings on the question of adverse possession of the defendants-respondents which has not been decided by the Court of the first instance. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusal of the record of the above appeal, it is clear from the order of the lower appellate Court that in remanding the matter, it has observed that the Court of the first instance has not recorded the finding on all issues separately and has not framed issue with regard to the adverse possession. 13. I find myself unable to agree with the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 13. I find myself unable to agree with the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court is not justified in setting aside the judgment of the Court of first instance without setting aside the findings recorded by it and there is no illegality in law to decide and report the findings on more than one issue together. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the issue Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 which has been decided by the trial Court together, are dependent on each other and has rightly been decided by the Court of first instance together. 14. So far as the direction issued by the lower appellate Court while remanding the matter to the Court of first instance to frame the issue with regard to adverse possession, it is precisely to record that the defendants-respondents have never raised question of non-framing of issue with regard to adverse possession either before the Court of first instance or in their ground of appeal when they challenged the judgment of the Court of first instance before the lower appellate Court. The trial Court has framed the issues on 3 different dates i.e. 16.1.2002, 14.5.2009 and 29.1.2013 respectively. However, if the lower appellate Court was view the question of adverse possession is required to be decided then as the entire evidence is available on record before the lower appellate Court then it is incumbent upon the lower appellate Court to decide the questions/issues by itself. 15. The remanding of the matter for the purpose to fill in lacuna is not permissible under the law. The matter can only be remanded if the conditions provided under Order XLIII Rule 23 (A) of the C.P.C. are satisfied. 16. In my opinion, none of the conditions enumerated under Order XLIII Rule 23(A) of the C.P.C exists in the present case, inasmuch as, neither the defendants-respondents being ever raised the question of non-framing of the issues before the Court of first instance nor have raised it in their grounds of appeal. The order of the remanding, therefore, is based on extraneous reason not specified under the law. In fact, the lower appellate Court should have decide the appeal after taking into consideration all the facts and after framing the points for determination under Order XLIII Rule 31 of the C.P.C. in place of remanding the matter back to the Court of first instance. 17. In fact, the lower appellate Court should have decide the appeal after taking into consideration all the facts and after framing the points for determination under Order XLIII Rule 31 of the C.P.C. in place of remanding the matter back to the Court of first instance. 17. In view of above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2014 (Mata Deen (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Sri Mahadev Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and others) is set aside with a direction to afford sufficient opportunity to both the parties to adduce the additional evidence, and further to afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Since the suit is of the year 1990, I request the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, if possible, within 6 months from the date of order of this Court. This Court makes it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 18. No order as to costs.