JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Nagaur, whereby the appellate court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant and while setting aside the decree dated 29.08.2011, has remanded back the matter to the trial court for redetermining issues No.1, 3, 4 and 6 with a direction to take additional evidence of the parties. 2. The suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs for declaration and possession of the suit property. The suit was resisted and the trial court framed as many as nine issues. After evidence was led by the parties, the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, was decreed, the appellants-plaintiffs were declared owner of the suit property and the sale deed dated 02.09.1993 was set aside. Further direction was given for handing over possession of the suit property and payment of mesne profit @ Rs.100/- per month. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-defendant filed appeal. Along with the appeal, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was filed. The appellate court after hearing the parties on the appeal as well as the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, allowed the application filed by the respondent-defendant under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. Thereafter the appellate court went on to reverse findings on issues No.1 and 2 and also reverse finding on issues No.3 and 6, however, came to the conclusion that as application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC has been allowed, the parties should be granted an opportunity to lead evidence/rebut the same and passed the order of remand. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants plaintiffs that the appellate court was not justified in setting aside the impugned decree passed by the trial court for the reasons indicated by it in the appeal. Further submissions were made that by deciding certain issues without proper discussion and without dealing with other issues, the matter has been remanded back to the trial court for decision of particular issues, which procedure adopted by the appellate court is ex-facie incorrect. It was submitted that there was no reason for the appellate court to remand back the matter to the trial court by setting aside the reasoned judgment passed by the trial court and, therefore, the judgment impugned passed by the appellate court deserves to be set aside. 5. It was submitted that there was no reason for the appellate court to remand back the matter to the trial court by setting aside the reasoned judgment passed by the trial court and, therefore, the judgment impugned passed by the appellate court deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant supported the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court. It was submitted that the application filed by the respondent-defendant under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was accepted by the appellate court and for proving the said documents and judging the effect of the said documents on the suit, the matter was in fact required to be remanded back to the trial court and, therefore, it was rightly done by the appellate court and the judgment impugned does not call for any interference. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgment and order passed the appellate court as well as the trial court. 7. The trial court after hearing the parties decided all the issues and passed the impugned decree. In the first appeal filed by the respondent-defendant, application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was filed. The appellate court though was justified in deciding the application at the time of final disposal of the appeal, has thereafter not dealt with the matter as per requirements of Order 41, Rule 28 or Rule 29 CPC and has not recorded as to whether the documents permitted to be produced could be taken into consideration by the appellate court while deciding the appeal and/or the matter was required to be remanded back to the trial court for the said purpose. The appellate court stopped after passing the order allowing the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and, thereafter started considering the appeal on merits issue wise and based on the material, which was available before the trial court, came to the conclusion that the findings on issues No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were required to be set aside and then recorded the following conclusion:- ^^28- pwafd rudh la[;k 1] 3] 4 vkSj 6 dk fu.kZ; rF;kRed :i ls vkSj fof/kd :i ls mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ugha ik;k tkrk gS] ftldk izfrdwy izHkko rduh la[;k 3 ij iM+rk gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukafdr 29-08-2011 ckcr~ rudh la[;k 1] 3] 4 vkSj 6 ds fu.kZ; ds v/khu izHkko'khy gksus ds dkj.k vkykSP; fu.kZ; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk rF;kRed :i ls vkSj fof/kd :i ls ugha ik, tkus ds dkj.k vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj bl fcUnq ij ewy vihy dks va'k'kr% Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 ds rgr izLrqr nLrkostksa ds laca/k esa izfri{kh dks ;kuh oknhx.k dks volj nsus ds mijkUr mlds [k.Mu esa lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj fn;k tkuk pkfg,A ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr ikfjr leLr rudh la[;k 1] 3] 4 vkSj 6 fof/kd :i ls vkSj rF;kRed :i ls iq"V fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha ik, tkus ds dkj.k vikLr fd;k tkdj mDr ekeyk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks fjekaM fd;k tkuk vihy esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ksfpr ik;k tkrk gSA** And thereafter remanded back the matter to the trial court. 8. The procedure adopted by the appellate court, in first setting aside the findings recorded by the trial court on issues No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 based on the material available on record of the trial court and, thereafter remanding back the matter to the trial court based on the ground that application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC had been allowed, is totally against the settled norms for the purpose of dealing with the appeals as indicated in provisions of Order 41, Rule 23A to 25 CPC. 9. 9. Once the appellate court had come to the conclusion that findings of issues No.1 to 4 and 6 were required to be reversed based on the material already available on record, no reasons have been recorded in the impugned judgment to indicate why thereafter the matter was required to be remanded back to the trial court, as based on its decision on the said issues, the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was bound to be rejected. 10. It is not discernible from the order passed by the appellate court as to what prevailed in the mind of the court in remanding back the matter to the trial court. 11. Further once the decree passed by the trial court was ordered to be set aside, the direction by the court only to decide the issues No.1, 3, 4 and 6 only also appears to be without any basis as once the issues No.1, 3, 4 and 6 were to be re-decided, it was required of the trial court to then decide the other issues also, which were wholly dependent on the earlier issues like issue No.5, which pertains to grant of mesne profit. Once the finding on issue No.1 pertaining to the title of the plaintiffs was set aside, there was no question of grant of any mesne profit, however, the appellate court has chosen not to remand the matter on the said issue, which clearly indicates that the overall view of the matter has not been taken by the appellate court. 12. In view of the defective determination by the appellate court in dealing with the matter before it, once the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was accepted by it, the judgment dated 14.03.2016 passed by the appellate court cannot be sustained. However, the order passed by the appellate court on application filed by the respondent-defendant under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC does not call for any interference. 13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs is partly allowed. The judgment dated 14.03.2016 passed by the appellate court, remanding back the matter to the trial court, is set aside, however, the order passed by it on application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC is upheld. The matter is remanded back to the appellate court to rehear and decide the matter in light of the observations made hereinbefore. The judgment dated 14.03.2016 passed by the appellate court, remanding back the matter to the trial court, is set aside, however, the order passed by it on application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC is upheld. The matter is remanded back to the appellate court to rehear and decide the matter in light of the observations made hereinbefore. The parties shall appear before the appellate court on 20.03.2017. No order as to costs.