JUDGMENT P K LOHRA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 11th of December, 2018 of District Judge, Balotra (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'), appellant-defendants No.1 & 2 have preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). By the impugned judgment, learned lower appellate Court, while setting aside judgment & decree dated 17th of December, 2004 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Balotra (for short, 'learned trial Court') dismissing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for perpetual and mandatory injunction, remanded the matter back for deciding issue No.5 afresh after taking evidence of the rival parties. 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction before learned trial Court inter-alia with the specific averment that at village Jasol one locality known as Sunaron ka Bas is situated near Mahaveer Chowk where many houses of business and goldsmiths are situated. It is further averred that towards southern side of respondent No.2's house there is a common chowk, which is utilized by the residents of locality. The dimensions of chowk are mentioned in the plaint. It is also averred in the plaint that Gram Panchayat has sold the aforesaid chowk to appellant-defendant dehors the rules inasmuch as a common chowk, which is to be utilized by public at large cannot be allotted to anyone. The respondent-plaintiffs have also questioned authority of the Gram Panchayat to allot public chowk to the appellant. Besides that, some other averments are also made in the plaint. The respondent-plaintiffs in order to show cause of action have also alleged that when appellants started construction at side, they approached Gram Panchayat but no heed was paid to their request. Alleging specifically in the plaint that allotment of the land in question to appellants is void abinitio, respondent plaintiffs prayed for aforementioned reliefs. 3. The suit is contested by the appellants inter-alia on the ground that the land in question is in their possession since time immemorial and allotment of the same has been made by the Gram Panchayat in adherence of law. It is also averred that the land in question is not a public chowk and the Gram Panchayat was authorized to allot the same. It is also averred that the land in question is not a public chowk and the Gram Panchayat was authorized to allot the same. Apart from the reason mentioned, on behalf of appellants a specific objection was also raised that suit is barred by limitation. Written statement is followed by rejoinder of the respondent plaintiffs reiterating the averments made in the plaint. 4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, settled 9 issues for determination and the rival parties led their evidence. Upon conclusion of the evidence of parties, the learned trial Court proceeded to decide the suit finally and decided issue No.1 & 2 against respondent-plaintiffs. Likewise, issues No.3 & 5 are also decided against the respondent-plaintiffs. Apart from that, issue No.7 & 8 are decided in favour of appellant-defendants and issue No.4 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Finally, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of learned trial Court, respondent No.1 & 2 preferred appeal before the learned lower appellate Court and the learned lower appellate Court upon re-appreciation of evidence reversed the finding on issue No.7 & 8 and after re-framing issue No.5 remanded the matter back for deciding the same afresh. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendants at length and perused the impugned judgment. 6. At the outset, it may be observed that appellate Court is clothed with the jurisdiction to remand the case by resorting to Rule 23 & 23A of Order 41 CPC in appropriate circumstances. While exercising power of remand, if the appellate Court finds that lower Court has committed an error, omission, or irregularity by reason of which there has not been a proper trial, or an effectual or complete adjudication of the suit, the case can be remanded for decision afresh. Similarly, if the appellate Court is of the view that error, omission, or irregularity in adjudication by the learned lower Court has materially prejudiced the cause of a litigant, it can exercise power to remand. It goes without saying that appellate Court has inherent power of remand even in cases not falling within Order 41 Rule 23 CPC, if it be necessary for the ends of justice. 7. It goes without saying that appellate Court has inherent power of remand even in cases not falling within Order 41 Rule 23 CPC, if it be necessary for the ends of justice. 7. In the instant case, the learned lower appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence has found the finding of learned trial Court on issue No.7 & 8 laconic and furthermore it has recorded a definite finding that issue No.5 has not been properly settled by the learned trial Court. Therefore, in that background, setting aside findings on issue No.7 & 8, the learned lower appellate Court has re-framed issue No.5 and then remanded the matter back to trial Court for its decision afresh after taking evidence of rival parties. In my opinion, the discretion exercised by learned lower appellate Court, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of case, cannot be categorized as perverse or contrary to Rule 23A of Order 41 CPC. 8. Upon examining the findings of learned lower appellate Court, it is abundantly clear that the Court has recorded its satisfaction to remand the matter for proper adjudication of the case. In the backdrop of lis involved in the matter wherein respondent-plaintiffs have complained about allotment of a land which is a public chowk, in my opinion, re-framing issue No.5 and remanding the matter back is a just decision, which is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 CPC, a jurisdiction which is not akin to a regular first appellate jurisdiction. 9. A bare perusal of impugned judgment also makes it clear that learned lower appellate Court has discussed the matter in its entirety, more particularly, issue No.7, 8 & 5 and thereafter recording its finding that issue No.5 has been erroneously framed, remanded the matter back after re-framing issue No.5. Therefore, in my view, learned lower appellate Court has rightly exercised its power of remand in the interest of justice warranting no interference by this Court. 10. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.