JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: ^^fygktk vihy vihykFkhZ ÁLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd vihy vihykFkhZ lO;; Lohdkj dh tkdj v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh dks vikLr fd;s tkus dh vkKk Ánku djkos ,oa ekeyk iqu% v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; dks xq.kkoxq.k ij fuf.kZr djus gsrq ÁfrÁsf"kr fd;k tkosA** 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking compensation against the respondents, the same was decreed by the learned trial court on 01.09.1997. The respondent filed an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. However, the said appeal was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur. During pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by both the parties under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to take a particular decision, which was relevant, on record before deciding the said appeal. The decision to be taken on record was dated 17.05.1999. 3. The learned appellate court, while taking the aforementioned decision on record, remanded the matter back to the learned trial court to consider the said document dated 17.05.1999 on record, before arriving at a final conclusion. 4. Mr.R.K. Thanvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi for the appellant made a limited submission that Order 41 Rule 23 CPC requires the learned appellate court to have arrived at a conclusion that the order passed by the learned trial court was wrong, before remanding the matter back. Thus, as per learned Senior Counsel, the said remand order, without reaching to such conclusion, was contrary to law. 5. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gangi Vs. Gian Kaur & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 175, relevant portion of which reads as under: “10. The Appellate Court cannot make order of remand without coming to a conclusion that the decision of the trial Court is wrong and that it is necessary to reverse or set aside the judgment and decree. It has to consider the evidence on record and then arrive at a conclusion whether the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be supported on evidence on record. It has to consider the evidence on record and then arrive at a conclusion whether the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be supported on evidence on record. The Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the judgment of the trial Court merely for the purpose of remanding the case. The course adopted by it has to be deprecated. This Court has said time and again that remand should be ordered when the case falls within the four corners of O. 41, R. 23 or 23-A, Civil P.C. and final judgment cannot be rendered by resorting to the provisions of O. 41, Rr. 24 and 25, Civil P.C. It was unnecessary to frame the additional issue with regard to the validity of the compromise, Exhibit DW8/A. The parties were fully alive to the issue regarding the validity of the alleged compromise. They led evidence on this point and the trial Court, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion thatthe compromise had no sanctity in the eye of law. This finding of the trial Court was open to challenge before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court could have reversed the same if it was so justified on facts.” 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in RSRTC & Anr. Vs. Haridwarilal Sharma, reported in 2014(1) Civil Court Cases 802 (Rajasthan), relevant portion of which reads as under: “7. In view of the above stated legal position, the powers of remand could be exercised by the appellate court either under Rule 23 or under Rule 23-A of Order XLI. While Rule 23 could be exercised when the suit is disposed of by the trial court on a preliminary issue, Rule 23-A could be invoked when the suit is disposed of otherwise than on preliminary point and when the decree is reversed in appeal, and the retrial is found necessary by the appellate court. In the instant case, from the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the appellate court, it transpires that the appellate court has remanded the case to the trial court, without reversing the findings recorded by the trial court on the issues framed by the trial court and without finding the retrial necessary.” 7. Reliance has also been placed by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Rampyare Ram Hiraman Prasad Vs. Usha Prasad Rampyare Ram Hiraman, reported in 2017 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 328 (Bombay), relevant portion of which reads as under: “7. Under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 23-A of the Code, the appellate Court can direct remand of the proceedings after it reverses the decree and further finds that a fresh trial is necessary. For said purpose, the appellate Court would have to first go into the merits of the adjudication by the trial Court and only on being satisfied that the decree is liable to be reversed and fresh trial is considered necessary that such order of remand can be passed. In P. Purushottam Reddy and another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is only in exceptional cases and where the conditions stipulated by provisions of Order XLI Rule 23-A of the Code are satisfied that such order of remand can be passed. In the present case, the appellate Court without entering into merits of the adjudication by the trial Court merely remanded the proceedings so as to give one opportunity to the respondent to contest the proceedings. In absence of the conditions stipulated under Order XLI Rule 23-A of the Code being satisfied such order of remand could not have been passed.” 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in Basudev Gouda Vs. Narsingha Patra, reported in AIR 1988 Orissa 278, relevant portion of which reads as under:- “6. The appellate Court is directed to hear the appeal afresh and in case it is felt that the appeal can only be disposed of by a fresh Commissioner being appointed, it shall keep the appeal pending and after framing an issue, it shall remit that issue for a finding of the trial court after considering the report of the Commissioner appointed afresh. In case there are other materials as claimed by the appellant, the appellate Court shall decide the appeal. ” 9. In case there are other materials as claimed by the appellant, the appellate Court shall decide the appeal. ” 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the impugned remand order is perfectly in accordance with law, as both the parties wanted a particular document to be considered, and that, the learned appellate court had passed the remand order without making consideration on merit of the order dated 17.05.1999, while directing the same to be considered by the learned trial court before arriving at a final conclusion. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar. 11. Order 41 Rules 23, 23A, 24 & 25 read as follows: “Order XLI.-Appeals from original decrees: Rule 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 be 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, which 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 all just exceptions, be evidence during the trial after remand. 23A. Remand in other cases.-Where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, 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. 24. Where evidence on record sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally.- Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds. 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 same for trial to the Court from whose decree the 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.” 12. This Court finds that in the order impugned, the learned appellate court has taken into account that both the parties had jointly sought the order dated 17.5.1999 to be taken on record for adjudication on merits. 13. This Court also finds that the learned appellant court has recorded that the document in question, if examined, would have impacted the order passed by the learned trial court, and thus, it was necessary that the said document be taken on record, before deciding the case in question. 14. This Court has taken note of the fact that once the learned appellate court was satisfied that the documents dated 17.5.1999 and 13.08.2004 were relevant, and without that the proper judgment could not be arrived at, then it was imperative upon the learned appellate court to have remanded the matter back. 15. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that any conclusion by the learned appellate court to the effect that the order passed by the learned trial court was good or bad at this stage, when the appropriate document was not on record, would have unnecessarily prejudiced the learned trial court. 16. Order 41 read with Rules 23, 23A, 24 & 25 CPC give wide powers to the learned appellate court to remand the matter back, and this was the circumstance where incomplete adjudication due to incomplete documentation, which was jointly averred by the parties, was a valid reason for the matter to have been remanded back. 17. 16. Order 41 read with Rules 23, 23A, 24 & 25 CPC give wide powers to the learned appellate court to remand the matter back, and this was the circumstance where incomplete adjudication due to incomplete documentation, which was jointly averred by the parties, was a valid reason for the matter to have been remanded back. 17. If the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the learned appellate court should have drawn the conclusion as sought by the appellant, is accepted, then the learned appellate court would be required to take the document insisted by both the parties to be taken on record, and while dealing with such document, it will have to pass a reasoned order, and that would prejudice the learned trial court, in case of remand. However, in view of this Court, in the given peculiar facts, the remand order was required to be free from any prejudice against either of the parties, and thus, was justified. 18. The precedent laws cited by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the present case. 19. In light of the aforesaid observations, no interference is called for in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.