JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed against the verdict rendered by the learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, upon, Civil Appeal RBT No. 23-S/13 of 2017/14 on 21.03.2018, where through, he proceeded to after striking, the hereinafter ad verbatim extracted issues No. 1(a) and 7-A, hence make an order of remand, upon, the learned trial Court, (a) upon, his invoking, the, mandate of Order 41, Rule 23-A of the CPC, (b) AND with a peremptory direction, upon, it to render a decision afresh, upon, civil suit No. 14-1 of 2014/1985, (c) given his concluding qua infraction, vis-a-vis, mandate of Order 20, Rule 5 of the CPC, rather standing apparently sparked:- "Issue No. 1(a): Whether the value of the property in question was Rs.20 lacs at the time parties enter into an agreement for its sale. If so, what is its effect on the enforcement of the said agreement?.....OPD Issue No.7-A Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, i.e. plaintiff NO.2, who has been joined with mala fide intention? OPD.” 2. In the plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree for specific performance of contract/ agreement hence executed on 26.03.1982, and, on the pleadings of the parties, this Court, upon, institution of the apt civil suit initially, before, this Court, had, on 10.03.1986, framed, the hereinafter extracted issues:- 1. Whether the parties entered into an agreement of sale with respect to the suit property according to the terms and conditions given in para 3 of the amended plaint? OPP 2. Whether fraud and pressure was exercised on the defendant and there is no valid agreement between the parties? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has been and is willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP 4. Whether the time was the essence of the contract? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant is bound to obtain the permission of the competent authority under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act for transfer of the suit property as also no objection certificate from the Income tax authorities? OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit due to his acts, conduct and acquiescence? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance? If so, in which form? OPP 8. Relief. OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit due to his acts, conduct and acquiescence? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance? If so, in which form? OPP 8. Relief. The learned trial Court, after, making a conclusion qua there existing interconnectivity, and, interlink age inter se all the afore formulated issues, thereafter clubbed all the afore issues, and, rendered common findings, upon, each of them, (a) and, for requisite reasons hence rendered disaffirmative findings, upon issue No.1, 3, 5 and 7, (b)and, rendered affirmative findings, upon, issues No.2 and 4. Being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiffs instituted, an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the latter Court hence proceeded to render the impugned verdict. 4. The learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved therefrom defendant, and, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, (i) respectively make vehement espousals before this Court, for, hence, invalidating or validating the impugned verdict, (ii) and, concomitantly also respectively hence espoused qua the appropriate course, for, adoption, by the learned First Appellate Court being one comprised in Order 41, Rule 25 of the CPC, and, one embodied, in, the mandate borne in Order 41, Rule 23-A, CPC hence being merit worthy. 5. 5. Before proceeding to dwell into, and, mete an adjudication, upon, the afore espousals made before this Court, by the learned counsel for the contesting litigants, (a) it is deemed incumbent to render a verdict, vis-a-vis, the necessity at all, of, framing of the afore issue No.7-A. The afore framed issue, appears, to stand formulated, hence under the impugned verdict, by the learned First Appellate Court, upon, its being grossly unmindful, vis-a-vis, an order pronounced by this Court, on 6.5.1992, (b) wherein, a graphic disclosure, is, borne qua in the amended plaint, only, the name of plaintiff Shri Jawahar Lal Jain hence occurring, and, yet in the written statement, as well, as, in the replication thereto, as, filed by the plaintiff, a, reference also being made to original plaintiff No.2 M/s Punjab Concast Steel Ltd, (c) and, upon the counsels respectively appearing for the contesting litigants, hence, making a conjoint address before this Court qua the afore occurrence, in, the plaint, vis-a-vis, the name of M/s Punjab Concast Steel Ltd., original plaintiff No.2, rather arising from, a mere sheer inadvertence, and, it being ignored, (d) thereupon, this Court accepting the afore espousal, hence, the learned First Appellate Court, was enjoined to revere the afore mandate pronounced, by this Court, on 6.5.1992, than, to proceed to strike issue No.7-A supra. Consequently, the formulation, by the learned First Appellate Court, of, afore issue No.7-A, and, any direction made by it, upon, the learned trial Court, for, rendering findings thereon, is wanting in legality, and, hence, the afore issue is rendered redundant, and, also concomitantly, no findings are required to be rendered thereon, hence, by the learned trial Court. 6. Nowat, the core controversy engaging the contesting litigants, devolves upon, the trite factum qua the learned first Appellate Court, validly recoursing Order 41, Rule 23-A of the CPC, or whether the apt recoursing(s) rather being the one ordained, in, Order 41, Rule 25 of the CPC. 6. Nowat, the core controversy engaging the contesting litigants, devolves upon, the trite factum qua the learned first Appellate Court, validly recoursing Order 41, Rule 23-A of the CPC, or whether the apt recoursing(s) rather being the one ordained, in, Order 41, Rule 25 of the CPC. Before proceeding to rest the afore legal conundrum, it is significant to bear in mind (a) that, the striving(s) of the learned counsel, hence, appearing for the respondents herein, for, his rather validating the impugned verdict, is, squarely rested, upon, the learned First Appellate Court, rather making a valid conclusion qua the learned trial Court, hence, committing an illegality in its clubbing or consolidating, all the afore issues, and, also its concomitantly rendering common findings thereon, (b) AND hence, thereupon, its making deep pervasive infraction(s), vis-a-vis, the mandate borne in Order 20, Rule 5, of, the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “5. Court to state its decision on each issue.- In suits in which issues have been framed, the court shall state its findings or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon, each separate issue, unless the findings upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit.” A plain reading of the hereinabove extracted provisions borne, in, Order 20, Rule 5 of the CPC, (c) though, does visibly bring forth, a noticeable, and, evident factum, of, a statutory injunction being cast, upon, the civil court concerned, to, render findings upon each of the issue(s), struck, upon, the contentious pleadings, of, the contesting litigants, (d) yet the afore peremptory injunction cast, upon, the civil courts concerned, is, with a rider qua, (e) unless recording, of, findings upon one or more issues, rather being sufficient for the decision, of, the suit. However, the afore provisions, as stand alluded, in the impugned verdict, by the learned First Appellate Court, in its hence recoursing the mandate embodied in Order 41, Rule 23-A, of the CPC, appear(s) to stand sparked, by, a gross mistaken dependence being made thereon, (f) given the afore exception, to, the dire legal necessity cast, upon, the civil court concerned, to render findings upon each of the issue(s), and, imperatively rather with the afore exception becoming activated rested, upon, any returning, of, a finding, upon, any issue rather being construed by the court concerned, to be sufficient, for, hence making, of, a valid pronouncement, vis-a-vis, the fate of the case, (g) obviously, being required to read in tandem, with, the mandate of Order 14, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, (f) necessarily for begetting an apt inter se harmony, and, also for obviating both being not rendered redundant. “1. Framing of issues (1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one-party and denied by the other shall form the subject of distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and 71[after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders], ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. (6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence. [2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. [2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.]” A close and incisive reading, of, the hereinabove extracted mandate, as, encapsulated in Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC, (i) makes vivid upsurgings qua the civil court concerned, being enjoined to pronounce judgment, on all issues, yet, upon, the civil court concerned, rather making an objective discerning qua the lis, being aptly terminable, upon, findings being rendered, upon, an issue appertaining to law, specifically appertaining qua (a) the jurisdiction of the court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, (ii) thereupon, it being a valid befitting endeavour, for, hence the learned trial Court, to, hence after framing the afore issue(s) of law, rather render findings thereon, for hence ensuring termination, of, lis, and, also obviously hence, being empowered, to, postpone the settlement of, or, formulation of issues of fact. However, even the afore mandate, as, encapsulated in the provisions supra, borne in the CPC are unamenable, for, recoursing by the learned counsel, for the respondents, for his hence striving, to, validate the impugned pronouncement, (iii) given this Court, at the apt stage, of its, rather holding the apposite pecuniary jurisdiction, hence to try the suit, it formulating all issues of fact, and, of law, and, obviously when within, the, domain of sub-rule (2) to Rule 2, of, Order 14 of the CPC, (iv) no apt issues of law were either struck nor formulated, nor hence obviously when there was any postponement of formulation of issues appertaining to the contested facts, arising, from the pleadings, as, respectively reared by the contesting litigants, (v) thereupon, it was imperative for the learned trial Court, to not segregate the issues of fact, from the issues of law, nor hence, it was legally befitting, for, the learned trial Court to pronounce verdicts only, upon, issues appertaining, to law, and, to omit to render findings, upon, the factually contested issues, rather in the learned trial Court rendering findings upon issues of fact, and, upon, purported issues of law, has obviously not committed hence any gross illegality or impropriety. 7. However, the afore making, of, a combined reading, of, the afore exception, vis-a-vis, the mandate borne, in Order 20, Rule 5 of the CPC, wherein, in, the opening part thereof, a strict injunction is cast, upon, the civil courts concerned, to, decide each issue separately, and, also to render separate findings, upon, each issue, AND, with the mandate of Order 2, Rule 14 of the CPC. (i) It is evident qua hence for ensuring harmony inter se the afore provisions, that, the exception borne in Order 20, Rule 5 of the CPC, RATHER being recourse able, only upon emergences, of, the gravest exceptional circumstance, (ii) AND comprised, in, existence, of, forthright evidence qua the suit hence being barred by limitation or by law pronounced, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and, only upon the afore exceptional contingencies rather evidently arising, (iii) thereupon, any non rendition of findings, by the learned trial Court, upon, the, issues appertaining to the contested facts, being, hence being legally worthy, given theirs being rendered redundant. 8. 8. Be that as it may, a circumspect, and, deep reading of the afore provisions, does not apparently, bar the learned trial Court, to, upon its making an objective discernment, qua there being, a, visible interconnectivity inter se, the, formulated or struck issues, to hence, proceed to render common findings, upon, each of them (a) nor a surgical reading of the afore provisions, forbids, the, civil court concerned to club or consolidate, all, interlink able or inconnected issues. However, the afore interconnectivity or inter-reliability, has, rather to be evident, and, also all the evidently interconnected or interlinked issues, are also required, to be hence thereon rather returned findings, (i) AND a stark illegality would arise, only, upon, evidently interconnected or interlink able issues rather remaining unanswered or no findings standing recorded thereon. Bearing in mind the afore principle of law, as innately encapsulated, in the provisions supra, and, when all the issues, whereon hence common findings are rendered, are evidently, and, apparently mutually interconnected, (ii) and, also when, they are also validly consolidated, thereupon, the learned trial Court, upon, its considering all the evidence apposite to each of the consolidated issue(s), and, thereafter it proceeding to render findings, upon, each of them, (iii) rather thereupon, foster(s) an inference qua it being unshakeably clear, that, the injunction supra cast, upon, the learned trial court, to, render findings, upon, each issue(s) standing neither breached nor infracted, whereupon, the strivings, of, the learned counsel, for, the respondent, is hence invalidated. 9. The effect of the afore discussion, necessarily brings to, the fore, the validity of recoursing, by the learned first appellate court, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Order 41, Rule 23-A of the CPC, or whether it was rather befitting for the learned first Appellate Court, to, recourse the provisions of Order 41, Rule 25 of the CPC. For determining the afore trite conundrum, it is imperative, to extract hereinafter, the, provisions of Order 41, Rule 23-A of the CPC, and, the provisions of Order 41, Rule 25 of the CPC:- “23-A Remand in other cases.-Where the Curt from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than one a preliminary pint, 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. 25. 25. Where Appellate Court may frame issues and refer them for trial to court whose decree appealed from.- 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 appears to the Appellate Court essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits, the Appellate Court may, if necessary, frame issues, and, refer the issue for trial to the court from whose decree and appeal is preferred and in such case shall direct such court to take the additional evidence required; and such court shall proceed to try such issues, and shall return the evidence to the Appellate Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor [within such time as may be fixed by the Appellate Court or extended by it from time to time].” A surgical reading, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Order 41, Rule 23-A hence brings forth rather upsurgings (i) qua upon the learned First Appellate Court, upon, noticing qua the learned trial Court hence omitting to frame or strike any issue(s) appertaining to the fact(s) or to law, (ii) whereas, both whereof hence appear to the learned first Appellate Court, rather essential, for, arriving at a valid decision, upon, the merits of the suit, (iii) thereupon, the learned First Appellate Court being empowered to frame apt therewith issues, and, to refer them to the learned trial Court, for, their trial, and, thereafter, it being also empowered to make an order of remand, to, the learned trial Court concerned, to, within a time bound period, hence, make a decision upon the relevant issues. However, it is also apparent, on, a reading of Order 41, Rule 25 of the CPC, (iv) qua upon the learned First Appellate Court, hence, within its ambit rather making an order of remand, vis-a-vis, the learned trial Court, to render findings, upon, the, issues formulated by the former Court, it, also being legally empowered, to, make a direction upon it, to, after receiving the apt evidence thereon, to also render apt findings thereon,(v) AND, for facilitating the afore statutory purpose(s), its also transmitting its verdict, where through, hence, the apt remanded issues stand remitted, vis-a-vis, the learned first Appellate Court, (vi) imperatively, hence, the, innate subtle nuance thereof, is qua, the learned First Appellate Court, rather maintaining the appeal on its docket, and, after, the, order of remand, hence, being complied with by the learned trial Court concerned, thereupon, the, Appellate Court, within the ambit of Order 41, Rule 26 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, (vii) hence permitting the apposite aggrieved, to, within the time fixed by it, hence, prefer objections there before, against, the findings rendered, upon, the relevant issues, by the learned trial Court, (viii) conspicuously upon, the latter receiving them on remand, from, the first Appellate Court, provisions of Order 41, Rule 26 read as under:- “26. Findings and evidence to be put on record-objections to finding.- (1) Such evidence and findings shall form part of the record in the suit; and, either party may, within a time to be fixed by the Appellate Court, present a memorandum of objection to any findings. (2) Determination of appeal- After the expiration of the period so fixed for presenting such memorandum the Appellate Court shall proceed to determine the appeal.” 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended, that, the afore recoursing, was both valid and appropriate, than the recorusings, by the learned First Appellate, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Order 41, Rule 23, of, the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “23. Remand of case by Appellate Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended, that, the afore recoursing, was both valid and appropriate, than the recorusings, by the learned First Appellate, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Order 41, Rule 23, of, the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “23. Remand of case by Appellate Court. Where the court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal, the Appellate Court may if it thinks fit, by order remand the case, and may further direct what issue or issues shall e tried in the case so remanded, and shall send a copy of its judgment and order to the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, with directions to re-admit the suit under its original number in the register of civil suits, and proceed to determine the suit; and the evidence (if any) recorded during the original trial shall, subject to all just exceptions, by evidence during the trial after remand.” (i) given any adherence to the mandate, of, the hereinabove extracted provisions of CPC, being sparked, only upon, a gross legal misdemeanor being visibly committed by the learned trial court, (ii) comprised in its proceeding to terminate the lis, upon, its recording findings, upon, a preliminary point, despite all issues, of, fact, and, of law being conjointly tried, (iii) AND hence it invalidly segregating issues, of fact, and, of law, and, also upon hence its making hence proceedings outside the domain of the afore grave exceptional contingency(ies), (iv) and, upon, the afore manner of termination of lis, by the learned trial Court, being frowned, upon, by the learned First Appellate Court, (v) thereupon, the latter Court, being also empowered to make an order of remand, upon, the learned trial Court to record findings, upon, a, specific issue, or issues, (vi) and, thereafter the learned First Appellate Court being further empowered, to, mete a direction, upon, the remandee court, to, readmit the suit, in, the relevant register, and, to proceed to determine the suit afresh, and, obviously hence a denovo trial, of, the suit, being an apt dire legal necessity. (vii) Since, the afore parameters, are, unsatiated by the verdict rendered by the learned trial Court, (viii) thereupon, the afore espousal made before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is, both apt as well as legally sound, (ix) reiteratedly given the verdict appealed before the learned First Appellate Court, rather making an evident display qua the learned trial Court not terminating the lis, upon, any preliminary point, (x) thereupon, it was misbefitting, for the learned First Appellate Court, to, obviously hence make an order, of, wholesale remand also to hence order for an impermissible denovo trial of the civil suit. Contrarily, the recoursing by the learned first Appellate Court, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Order 41, Rule 25 of the CPC, was rather, both befitting and appropriate, whereas, failure of recoursing thereto, is both inapt and illegal, thereupon, the impugned verdict suffers, from, an inherent legal fallacy. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned verdict is modified, in, the afore terms. The learned trial Court is directed, to, within a period of three months from 27th February, 2019, render findings only upon issue No.1(a) supra, and, the learned First Appellate Court is directed to within the ambit of Rule 25, Order 41 of the CPC, maintain, the record of the civil appeal in its docket, and, after the learned trial Court within the afore period, renders hence findings, upon, the afore issue, the learned First Appellate Court, is, directed to, within the ambit of Order 41, Rule 26 of the CPC, permit the aggrieved therefrom, to, within a specified period hence rear objections, in, civil appeal No. 23-S/13 of 2017/14 (Old No.22-S/13 of 2014), to maintained on its docket, by the learned First Appellate Court. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27th February, 2019. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Apposite records be sent back forthwith, to the ld. trial Court, and, to the learned First Appellate Court.