JUDGMENT : 1. Though matter listed for admission, by the consent of learned counsel of both sides, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The short point that arises for consideration in this miscellaneous second appeal is whether judgment and decree dated 22.04.2017 passed by 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (Sitting at Chennarayapatna) in RA.No.125/2015 allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back to the trial Court is to be sustained, set aside, modified or what order? 3. Parties are referred to as per their ranking in their trial Court. Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming half share in two items of the suit schedule properties by instituting OS.No.1/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Channarayapatna contending interalia that he and defendant Nos. 1 to 12 are the members of the joint family and one Sri. Thimmappaiah was their grand father who had four sons namely, Venakatramaiah, Suryanarayana @Gundappa, Thammaiah, Ramaswamy. It was further contended that plaintiff and defendant no.11 are the sons of Venkataramaiah and C.T. Thammaiah had three sons namely, Venkaetsh, Thimmapaiah and Satyanarayana and a daughter by name Girija. Chaitra and Venkatesh are children of Manjunatha, first defendant is the wife of Thimmappaiah and Satyanarayana is the third son of Thammaiah. Likewise, Venkataramu is the son of Suryanarayana @ Gundappa. 4. It was contended that ancestors of plaintiff being the members of Gurikar family had acquired both items of suit schedule property through grant and second item of the suit schedule property is a residential house. It was further contended that original propositor expired in the year 1994 and his wife and children used to derive income of suit schedule properties and they are ancestral and joint family properties which were not divided and as such plaintiff had demanded his grand father during his life time to effect partition of suit schedule properties and it was refused. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 and 6 got documents of the suit schedule properties mutated to their names in collusion with concerned authorities and two sons of Thimappaiah i.e., Suryanarayana and Ramaswamy alleged to have received money from the persons who were enjoying the suit schedule properties. Hence, plaintiff claimed half share in the suit schedule property and for the said relief, suit in question came to be filed. 5. Hence, plaintiff claimed half share in the suit schedule property and for the said relief, suit in question came to be filed. 5. In fact, defendant No.11 consented for the decree being granted as prayed for by the plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 resisted the suit by filing common written statement admitting source of nature of acquisition of suit schedule properties by ancestors and also existence of joint family by rising a plea that the father of the plaintiff had begotten six daughters and two sons and during life time of Venkatramaiah, he had prevailed upon his father Thimmappaiah to effect the partition in the joint family properties and accordingly suit schedule properties came to be partitioned on 23.11.1930 and when Venkatramaiah had demanded his share and started living separately. It was also contended that said Venkatramaiah sold the northern portion of the property which he had acquired under the partition by way of his share i.e. portion of item No.2 of the suit schedule property to third party under a registered sale deed dated 21.04.1934 and suppressing this fact plaintiff has filed the suit in question with an intention to make wrongful gain. Hence, defendant Nos. 1 to 7 sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, trial Court had framed issues and plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and in all, got marked 42 documents as Exs.P1 to P42. Contesting defendants also got themselves examined as DW1 to DW4 and got marked 45 documents as Exs.D1 to D45. Learned trial judge accepted the plea of defendant Nos. 1 to 7 had held issue No.3 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 10 which relates to the plea of prior to partition as such dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, unsuccessful plaintiff assailed the same before the Appellate Court in RA.No.123/2015. During the pendency of the said appeal an interlocutory application I.A.No.2 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of CPC came to be filed. Learned trial Judge after securing the records from trial Court and hearing the learned advocates appearing for both parties by judgment and decree in question allowed IA.No.2 which had been filed by the appellant plaintiff to bring his sisters on record. Learned trial Judge after securing the records from trial Court and hearing the learned advocates appearing for both parties by judgment and decree in question allowed IA.No.2 which had been filed by the appellant plaintiff to bring his sisters on record. However, without going into the merits of the appeal, and without reappreciating the evidence available on record remanded the matter to the trial Court on the ground that proposed parties who are ordered to be impleaded as D13 to D16 would be entitled to defend their rights and an opportunity is to be provided to them. Hence, this miscellaneous second appeal has been preferred. 8. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for appellants and Smt. P.V. Kalpana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 on the question of law formulated. 9. It is the contention of Sri. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for appellants that appellate Judge committed a serious error in remanding the matter back to the trial Court and it ought to have examined the appeal on merits, even if impleading applicants were ordered to be brought on record and as such, order of remand is liable to be set aside. He would also submit that IA.No.2 ought not to have been allowed, even then, the order of remand was not called for in as much as neither proposed defendants DW13 to 16 (impleading applicants) nor the appellants plaintiffs had sought for such order of remand being passed. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that even assuming that proposed impleading applicants who were ordered to be brought on record i.e. D13 to D16 are allowed to remain on record, they represents the branch of first respondent plaintiff and their right is if any would be to the limited extent of the right claimed by the plaintiff i.e. first respondent herein. As such, order of remand could not have been passed. 10. Per contra, Smt. P.V. Kalpana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would support the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court and submits that if an opportunity has been extended by the first appellate Court to the impleading applicants no error can be found in the said finding recorded by the first Appellate Court and as such, she prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and on perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as modified by the first appellate Court it would emerge there from that learned appellate Judge has not gone into the merits of the appeal. On account of IA.No.2 filed by unsuccessful plaintiff, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead his sisters as parties to the suit on the ground that they being the grand daughters of original propositors, they would be coparceners by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act and as such, they would be entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties had sought for impleading them as parties to the suit for effective adjudication of claim made in the suit. It can be noticed at this juncture itself that impleading applicants did not oppose the application or in other words, they have stated that they have no objection to allow the interlocutory application. In other words, they sailed along with appellants plaintiffs. If it were to be so, at the most, shares of coparceners were alone requires to be determined in the event of plaintiffs being successful in the said suit/appeal. 12. In that view of the matter, question of remanding the suit to trial Court for adjudicating afresh as ordered by the first appellate Court requires to be found fault with. Order of remand is permissible under Order 41 Rule 23 and Order 41 Rule 23A and in the circumstances enumerated therein. Only in the event of contingencies prescribed under these two Rules are satisfied, appellate Court gets jurisdiction to remand the matter back to trial Court and as a matter of course, such order of remand cannot be passed. Order of remand is permissible under Order 41 Rule 23 and Order 41 Rule 23A and in the circumstances enumerated therein. Only in the event of contingencies prescribed under these two Rules are satisfied, appellate Court gets jurisdiction to remand the matter back to trial Court and as a matter of course, such order of remand cannot be passed. Under Rule 23, order of remand can be passed where the Court from whose decree an appeal has been preferred has disposed off the suit, upon a preliminary point and such decree is reversed in appeal or where the Appellate Court reversing or the setting aside the decree under appeal considers it necessary to remand the case in the interest of justice, the Appellate Court may by order remand of the case, and may further direct what issue or issues shall be tried in the case so remanded, where any further evidence shall or shall not be taken after remand and direct the trial Court to readmit the suit under its original number and proceed to determine the suit. An order of remand for fresh or further trial would be impermissible unless, the Appellate Court has gone into the merits of the case. Distinction between power of remand under Rule 23 and Rule 23(A) is clear and explicit. No order of remand can be made under Rule 23 unless, trial Court has disposed of the whole suit and not a portion of it or a preliminary point and Appellate Court reverses the decree under the appeal. Rule 23(A) would come into play when trial Court has disposed of the entire case otherwise, on a preliminary point and when the decree is reversed in appeal and retrial is considered and in such contingency, Appellate Court will have the power indicated in Rule 23. 13. Keeping these aspects in mind, when facts on hand are examined it would not detain this Court for long to set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court in as much as the ground on which the lower appellate Court has exercised the power under Rule 23 to remand the matter back to the trial Court is on the ground that application IA.No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC had been allowed. Since the impleading applicants have also categorically stated no objection for being allowed, it would clearly indicate that they are sailing with the plaintiffs and opposing defendants 1 to 7, who had opposed said application and resisted for impleading applicants being brought on record. To put it differently, impleading applicants also wanted the suit being decreed as had been prayed for by the plaintiffs. Thus it would clearly emerge there from, that even if right of impleading applicants are conceded/accepted, it would be in line with the right of the plaintiffs. The only question that would arise would be as to the extent of apportionment of shares, if any, to which they would be entitled to and nothing short or nothing more. In this factual scenario, lower Appellate Court being the last fact finding Court and possessing the power to examine this aspect and its power being coterminus with the power of trial Court it was required to examine the appeal on merits including the defence if any of the proposed defendants Nos.13 to 16 who have been brought on record. Instead of undertaking such an exercise, lower Appellate Court has ventured to set aside the decree passed by the trial Court without recording finding as to why the finding recorded by the trial Court on the issues are suffering from any illegality or infirmity. For these reasons judgment of the Appellate Court cannot be sustained. 14. In the light of the aforestated discussion, the judgment of the first Appellate Court requires to be set the aside and appeal is to be restored to the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan (Sitting at Channarayapatna) for being disposed of on merits and in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made herein above. Hence, the following JUDGMENT : 1. Miscellaneous Second appeal is hereby allowed. 2. Judgment and decree dated 22.04.2017 passed by 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan (Sitting at Channarayapatna) in RA.No.123/2015 is hereby set aside and RA.No.123/2015 is restored to file for being disposed of on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of nine months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3. No order as to costs.