JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (u) CPC has been filed by the appellants-defendants aggrieved against the judgment dated 15/5/2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.4, Bikaner, whereby, the first appeal filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff has been allowed, the judgment and decree dated 29/11/2012 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No.2, Bikaner has been set aside and matter has been remanded back to the said court for rehearing and for passing fresh judgment. 2. A suit for injunction was filed by the respondent no.1 against the appellants inter alia with the averments that the parties were brothers and that defendant threatened to take possession of the property which was in possession of the plaintiff and as the said threatening gave the cause of action, on 9/3/1989, a suit was filed along with an application for temporary injunction, which application was decided in favour of plaintiff, where after, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. It was alleged that on 10/10/1991, the defendant again without permission for construction started digging for laying foundation in the land belonging to the plaintiff, which gave cause of action for which a suit was filed and during the pendency of the suit, it was alleged that a gate has been put on 26/1/1997 and, therefore, the plaint was amended and besides the reliefs sought for not taking permission and demolishing wall, not raising construction and not interfering in possession of the plaintiff, mandatory injunction was sought that the gate be removed. 3. Defendant filed written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff and relied on the dismissal of the suit filed earlier. 4. Based on the averments made by the parties, the trial court framed 08 issues and after hearing the parties dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.1 plaintiff filed first appeal. The first appellate court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the trial court did not record any reason whatsoever for arriving at the finding on almost all the issues and on coming to the conclusion that non-recording of reasons was in fact violation of principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remanded back the matter to the trial court for rehearing and redeciding the matter based on the material available on record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the first appellate court was not justified in remanding back the matter. It was submitted that the trial court has recorded reasons in short and it cannot be said that there were no reasons recorded for arriving at the findings on various issues and, therefore, the judgment of the first appellate court deserves to be set aside. 6. Further submissions were made that in terms of provisions of Order 41, Rule 24 CPC, the first appellate court itself could have decided the suit and there was no necessity for remanding back the matter to the trial court for rehearing for writing a fresh judgment and, therefore, on that count also the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgments of both the courts below. 8. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgments of both the courts below. 8. A bare look at the judgment passed by the trial court would reveal that the trial court noticed the contentions of the parties; reproduced the issues; noticed that five witnesses had been examined, 10 documents were exhibited by respective parties; large number of citations as cited by respective parties were indicated and, thereafter, while recording the findings on various issues inter alia recorded reasons in following manner: “On Issue No. 1 14- iw.kZ i=koyh dk voyksdu djus rFkk lHkh nLrkostksa dk xgurk ls voyksdu djus ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd oknh bl fooknxzLr edku ij viuk vf/kiR; lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gS vr% mDr fookn~;d oknh ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA On Issue No. 2 15- bl fookn~;d dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gSA pwafd oknh fookn~;d la0 ,d dks lkfcr djus esa ukdke;kc jgk gSA vr% mDr rudh esa fooknxzLr edku ls lacaf/kr oknh viuk vf/kiR; lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gSA bl fookn~;d ds laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh nLrkost i=koyh esa ugha gS] blfy;s mDr fookn~;d dk fu.kZ; Hkh oknh ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA On Issue No. 3 18- fookn~;d la0 1 o 2 oknh ds fo:) fuf.kZr dh tk pqds gSA pwafd fooknxzLr edku ij oknh viuk vf/kiR; lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gSA blfy;s vf/kiR; ds vHkko esa oknh dk nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% bl fookn~;d dk fu.kZ; izfroknh ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA On Issue No. 6 21- pwafd oknh }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa ls izfroknh dCts laca/kh rF;ksa dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS vkSj dksbZ Hkh ,slk nLrkost i=koyh ij ekStwn ugha gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gks fd ewypan ls izfroknh us vius cguksbZ pks:yky ds uke ls dz; dj dCtk izkir fd;k gksA vr% ;g rudh izfroknh ds fo:) r; dh tkrh gSA On Issue No. 7a 27- bl fookn~;d ds laca/k esa U;k;ky; dk fouez er gS fd pwafd pks:yky U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj Hkh mlus c;ku ugha fn;s gSa tcfd og ftUnk gS] tks fd c;kuksa ls iw.kZr;k lkfcr gSA Lo;a lR;ukjk;.k }kjk ;g dgk x;k gS fd pks:yky vHkh ftUnk gSA vr% mDr rudh Hkh izfroknh lkfcr djus esa foQy jgk gSa] blfy;s bl fookn~;d dk fu.kZ; izfroknh ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA** 9. A perusal of the nature of reasons recorded by the court as quoted hereinbefore would reveal that the same are wholly cursory inasmuch as the trial court has simply jumped on to the finding on issue no.1 without recording any reasons for arriving at such finding and then decided all the issues based on such finding. 10. In the firm opinion of this Court, such handling of the issues by the trial court, wherein, without recording any reasons, the Court has arrived at findings, cannot be sustained. Order XX, Rule 4(2) and 5 CPC read as under:- "4(2) Judgment of other Courts. - Judgments of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision." "5. Court to state its decision on each issue. - In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issue is sufficient for the decision of the suit." 11. A bare reading of the said provisions would reveal that the same mandate the Court that the judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, the decision therefor and the reasons for such decision. Further, Order 20, Rule 5 CPC re-enforces the requirements contained in Order 20, Rule 4(2) CPC requiring that in suits, in which, issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless finding upon anyone or more of the issue is sufficient for the decision of the suit. Though despite mandate of deciding the issues separately, if the Court comes to the conclusion that certain issues need to be decided together, there is no bar to do the same. 12. A clear distinction has to be drawn between the findings and the reasons, which is apparent from the language of Order 20, Rule 5 CPC, which clearly provides that the Court is required to state its findings and record reasons. 12. A clear distinction has to be drawn between the findings and the reasons, which is apparent from the language of Order 20, Rule 5 CPC, which clearly provides that the Court is required to state its findings and record reasons. Whereas, the findings would be the conclusions drawn, the reasons are as to why such a conclusion has been arrived at and in absence of recording reasons by the Court and jumping on to findings would be contrary to the express requirement of Order 20, Rule 5 CPC and would clearly vitiate the judgment. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Income-Tax Officer v. Murlidhar Bhagwandas, AIR 1965 SC 342 considered the above aspect and in para 9 of the said judgment posed a question as to 'what does the expression "finding" mean?' and while observing that finding has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, quoted Order 20, Rule 5 CPC and observed as under:- "9. ........Under this Order, a "finding" is, therefore, a decision on an issue framed in a suit. The second part of the rule shows that such a finding shall be one which by its own force or in combination with findings on other issues should lead to the decision of the suit itself. That is to say, the finding shall be one which is necessary for the disposal of the suit. The scope of the meaning of the expression "finding" is considered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Pt. Hazari Lal v. Income-Tax Officer, Kanpur, (1960) 39 ITR 265(All). There, the learned Judges pointed out: "The word "finding", interpreted in the sense indicated by us above, will only cover material questions which arise in a particular case for decision by the authority hearing the case or the appeal which, being necessary for passing the final order or giving the final decision in the appeal, has been the subject of controversy between the interested parties or on which the parties concerned have been given a hearing." We agree with this definition of "finding". ..........." Where after it was concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "........Therefore, the expression "finding" as well as the expression "direction" can be given full meaning, namely, that the finding is a finding necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment ........." 14. ..........." Where after it was concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "........Therefore, the expression "finding" as well as the expression "direction" can be given full meaning, namely, that the finding is a finding necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment ........." 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Lata Ghosh v. Harendra Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1969 SC 1167 held and observed as under:- "6. Trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to achieve, according to law and the procedure of the Court, a judicial determination between the contesting parties of the matter in controversy. Opportunity to the parties interested in the dispute to present their respective cases on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence tendered by the parties, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon a finding on the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a judicial trial. In a judicial trial the Judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest: it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just. The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just. It is unfortunate that the learned Trial Judge has recorded no reasons in support of his conclusion, and the High Court in appeal merely recorded that they thought that the plaintiff had sufficiently proved the case in the plaint." (emphasis supplied) 15. From the above, it is apparent that while delivering the judgment the trial court was required to record its reasons for arriving at findings on various issues which it has failed to record. 16. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding provision of Order 41, Rule 24 CPC is concerned, the said Rule provides that where the evidence is sufficient to enable the appellate court to pronounce the judgment, the appellate court may after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit. 17. A bare look at the provisions of Rule 24 reveals that the said provisions are only enabling. In the present case, the first appellate court did not resettle the issues or come to any conclusion on merits because the trial court had not considered the issues involved in the suit at all and there being no finding on the issues framed, the first appellate court rightly decided not to decide the issues itself for the first time, which would have deprived the parties of their right to file first appeal. 18. In view thereof, the judgment passed by the first appellate court remanding back the matter to the trial court cannot be faulted. 19. Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.