ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2011, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Deoghar, in T.A. no. 47 of 2009, whereby learned Additional District Judge, has been pleased to remand the case to the trial court. 2. It is apparent from the impugned order that the appellate court has remanded the matter to the trial court for adjudicating on the issues as to whether the property of late Chathu Jha is required to be partitioned between the plaintiff and defendant and secondly, whether all heirs of late Chathu Jha were made parties in the suit and directed the trial court to decide the suit for partition. 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned order has contended that the first appellate court has remanded the case without framing any point of determination as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued that a Bench of this court in S.A. no.93 of 2004, has observed that the first appellate court is the last court of facts and law. That duty is cast on the first appellate court to formulate points for determination and decide the points on application of judicial mind and not to adjudicate the issues merely by reiterating the findings of the trial court. That in the given facts the order of remand under Order XLI Rule 25 of Code of Civil Procedure directing the trial court to adjudicate on the issues as mentioned above is not tenable as the first appellate court has passed the order without appreciating and considering the fact that the trial court has discussed the evidences of both the parties and given specific finding on all the issues, thus, the issues formulated in the remand order is unwarranted and the appellate court has committed grave error in directing the trial court to decide the suit for partition. On the above grounds it is urged that the impugned order is in contravention of the settled proposition and is fit to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents has supported the order of the first appellate court and submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. On the above grounds it is urged that the impugned order is in contravention of the settled proposition and is fit to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents has supported the order of the first appellate court and submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. It is contended that the lower appellate court on appreciation of the evidence on record has remitted the matter on limited two issues firstly, whether the property of late Chathu Jha is required to be partitioned between the plaintiff and defendant and secondly, whether all heirs of late Chathu Jha were made parties in the suit. The appellate court has given liberty to the parties to adduce evidence and directed that if the trial court so desires, it shall record evidence on the issues and return the finding on the said issues. It is submitted that both the parties have led their evidence and the case is fixed for argument of the parties. 5. Having heard the counsels and on-going through the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is not disputed that the settled proposition is that the first appellate court is the final court of facts and law. No doubt, duty is cast on the first appellate court to frame points for determination for adjudication, but, it is also settled principle that when the court applies its judicial mind independently and on examination and appreciation of the evidence on record, it records its satisfaction while arriving at the findings on each issues either agreeing or disagreeing with the findings on the issues framed by the trial court, this amounts to compliance of the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. The decision relied upon by the counsel has been rendered in second appeal whereas the instant appeal has arisen out the order of remand passed under Order XLI Rule 25 C.P.C. On perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court, it is manifest that the first appellate court despite, arriving at a conclusive finding on the issues, has remanded the matter on the two issues as mentioned above. The proposition of law is well settled that when material evidence is available before the lower appellate court, it has to decide the matter on the basis of evidence available on record and should not shirk from its responsibility by remitting the matter to the court below which is what has been done by the appellate court in the instant case. Admittedly five years have lapsed since the passing of the impugned order and it has been informed that the parties have adduced their evidence in terms of the remand order and the case is fixed for arguments of the parties. Since evidence has been adduced no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. In the attending facts and circumstances the trial court is directed to decide the two issues as formulated by the first appellate court and return the findings within two months to the appellate court which shall decide the appeal within four months thereafter. No unnecessary adjournments or time should be granted to the parties and both the parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the case. The observation and direction by the lower appellate court to the trial court for deciding the suit for partition was not warranted accordingly, the trial court shall exercise its own discretion in deciding the issues in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation and direction of the first appellate court for deciding the suit for partition. 6. With the said direction, the appeal is, hereby, disposed-off. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any view on the merit of the case.