ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent- Tata Steel and Mr. Satish Kumar, JC to GA. 2. The Title Suit No. 75 of 1997 has been filed by the plaintiff respondent- appellant for declaration that land describe in Schedule A, B and C belongs to the plaintiff as occupancy rayait and the record of rights prepared with respect to Schedule-B and C is wrong and erroneous. Further prayer has been made for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the schedule lands and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in Schedule-C lands as well as the cost of litigation. 3. As per the claim of the plaintiff, agricultural land of 55 bighas equivalent to 22.27 acres situated at Mauza Dimna under Ward No. 10 has been settled in favour of the plaintiff by authorized Tahsildar of exmokoraridar for agricultural purpose in the year 1937. For the said purpose, Rs. 137 has been fixed as salami with annual rent of Rs. 6/- for the purpose of cultivation of paddy therein and since 1937, the plaintiff is in possession of the said land exercising his raiyati rights. 4. It is further case of the plaintiff that in the year 1971-72, some wrong entry has been made in records of rights, but that has not affected the rights of the plaintiffs and they continued in possession of the suit land. But when defendant nos. 2 and 3 started making trouble, the present suit has been filed. The defendant nos. 1 and 2, who is State of Bihar has appeared and filed objection claiming therein that the said land has been vested to the State of Bihar and entire story of settlment as stated by the plaintiff is false and in fact the then settler/Tehsildar was never authorized to settle the land. Defendant no. 3 had also appeared and filed written statement before the Court below. He has also objected to the claim of the plaintiff and it has been further stated that the said land has been acquired by the State of Bihar and the same has been handed over the defendant no. 3. In support of their claim, some document has been filed by the defendants before the Trial Court, which is quoted here-in-below:- “Ext. 3. In support of their claim, some document has been filed by the defendants before the Trial Court, which is quoted here-in-below:- “Ext. A Deed of conveyance dated 30.08.1990 executed by the State of Bihar in favour of Tisco Ltd. Ext.B Carbon Copy of FIR dated 17.11.1999. Ext. C Award dated 28.12.1943 of I. A. Case No. 318 of 1943-44, Ext. D: Map of plot no. 23 and 24 under khata no. 137 of Mouza Dimna, Ext. E: Certified copy of Khatiyan of Khata no. 137 plots no. 23 and 24.” It is relevant to note that on the basis of pleadings of both the sides, six issues have been settled by the Trial Court on 23.03.2000:- “I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and for the relief’s claimed ? II. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action in his favour for the suit ? III. Whether the Schedule-A land belongs to the plaintiff and he has right and title over it in the capacity of occupancy raiyati right ? IV. Whether the record of right in respect of lands mentioned in Schedule B and Schedule C to the plaints has wrongly been prepared ? V. In case the Issue No. 3 goes against the plaintiff in alternative whether the plaintiff has perfected his right, title over the schedule-A, B and C land by his long uninterrupted possession adverse to the State of Bihar ? VI. To what other relief or relief’s the plaintiff is entitled to ?” 5. But, strangely the learned Trial Court during the course of writing the judgment has framed 12 issues, which reads as under:- “I. Is the suit as framed maintainable ? II. Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action ? III. Is the suit barred by limitation, the provision of the CNT Act, specific Relief Act and the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. IV. Is the suit bad for non joinder of necessary parties. V. Is the suit properly valued ? VI. Are the plaintiffs entitled to the relief’s claimed ? VII. Are the plaintiffs entitled to any other relief or relief’s. VIII. Is the counter claim of defendant no. 3 maintainable ? IX. Has the defendant no. 3 a valid cause of action for the counter claim ? X. Is the court fee paid by defendant no. 3 sufficient for the relief claimed. XI. Is defendant no. VII. Are the plaintiffs entitled to any other relief or relief’s. VIII. Is the counter claim of defendant no. 3 maintainable ? IX. Has the defendant no. 3 a valid cause of action for the counter claim ? X. Is the court fee paid by defendant no. 3 sufficient for the relief claimed. XI. Is defendant no. 3 entitled to the relief’s claimed as counter claim? XII. Is defendant no. 3 entitled to any other relief or relief’s?” 6. From perusal of above 12 issues framed by the learned Trial Court during writing the judgment, it is evident that some of the issues are completely new, which require factual assertion as well as evidences are required to be laid. Issues are such in nature that evidences by the parties is must and also opportunity is required to be given to argue the same. 7. Framing of issues is important stage for conclusion of the trial. Issues are of two kinds:- (i) Issue on Facts and (ii) Issue on Law. 8. The Court has to frame the issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the evidences, if any, and by giving opportunity to them to place their case. The Court is to find out the area of conflict between the parties on facts as well as on law and that area of conflict has to be reflected in the framing of issues. 9. The issues framed in such a manner has to be placed before both the parties, who must get the opportunity to lead their evidences accordingly and to argue on their point of view. 10. Sudden change of issues rather framing of new issues on fact as well as on law without giving any opportunity to the parties is against the spirit of the Civil Procedure Code. It is against the concept of fair trial and this itself is a ground for setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. 11. The First Appellate Court has taken notice to this fact that new issues have been framed, but no opportunities were given to the parties. It is against the concept of fair trial and this itself is a ground for setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. 11. The First Appellate Court has taken notice to this fact that new issues have been framed, but no opportunities were given to the parties. The learned Appellate Court rightly has taken upon himself of the framing of issues and six new additional issues have been framed and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court for rehearing the matter and if necessary, take evidence upon the newly framed issues and return the findings upon each and every issue. 12. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality in the judgment of the First Appellate Court. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in the order of the learned Appellate Court and merely asserted that a right has been created by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and that could not be reversed by the First Appellate Court on the ground of framing of new issues. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no substantial question of law in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. I. A. No. 96 of 2017 also stands dismissed.