JUDGMENT Surinder Gupta, J. (Oral) - Heard. 2. Suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 5,50,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 07.07.2005 was decreed by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 26.11.2012 with the observation that defendant admitted the execution of pronote and receipt in question, which carries presumption that it was executed for consideration. 3. In appeal, 1st Appellate Court remanded the case for re-trial with the observation that learned trial Court has not framed proper issues and following issues were framed with direction to trial Court to decide the case afresh after recording the evidence:- (i) Whether defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the pronote and receipt dated 07.07.2005 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP (ii) Whether the pronote and receipt in question are without consideration? OPD(iii) If issue no. (i) is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate? OPP (iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount from the defendant? OPP (v) Relief. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that issues already framed cover all the issues as framed by 1st Appellate Court. A finding was recorded by trial Court that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/-and the execution of pronote and receipt was admitted. 1st Appellate Court instead of examining the evidence on merit or appraising finding recorded by trial Court, adopted shortcut method to dispose of the appeal by framing the issues. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the dispute was regarding the execution of pronote and receipt. It was proved on record that the appellant had filed several other civil suits on the basis of pronote and receipt and an FIR was registered against him for forging pronote and receipts. During investigation of that case, 27 blank pronote and receipts were recovered from his possession. The marginal witnesses examined by the appellant have also not supported his case. 6. The trial Court in para 16 of its judgment observed that the execution of pronote and receipt is admitted which leads to presumption that it was executed for consideration. While recording finding on issue "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest, as prayed for?", specific finding was recorded in favour of plaintiff that he is entitled to recover the suit amount with interest. While recording finding on issue "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest, as prayed for?", specific finding was recorded in favour of plaintiff that he is entitled to recover the suit amount with interest. Here a question, which arises for consideration, is as to whether issues as framed by 1stAppellate Court are covered by the issue already framed? The answer to this will be in affirmative as the trial Court had framed issue "As to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest?" The above relief could be allowed only if the execution of pronote and receipt and the fact that pronote and receipt was for consideration are proved before the trial Court. As learned trial Court has recorded the finding on matter in dispute and parties were well aware of the controversy involved in the suit, there was no reason for the 1st Appellate Court to remand the case by framing issues on which findings have already been recorded by trial Court. So far as submission of learned counsel for respondent is concerned, the same relates to appreciation of evidence, which 1st Appellate Court can look into while disposing of the appeal. 7. Consequently, order dated 03.01.2014 passed by 1st Appellate Court is not tenable in the eyes of law being perverse. The same is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before 1st Appellate Court/successor Court on 29.03.2019. 8. 1st Appellate Court will take up the file of appeal on board and decide the same on merits in accordance with law.