ORDER : This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2019 in A.S.No.69/2017 on the file of the Additional District Court-II, Thalassery (hereinafter referred to as, “the first Appellate Court”) arising from the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2017 in O.S.No.388/2014 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba (hereinafter referred to as, “the Trial Court”). The appellant herein is the defendant No.1. The suit was for partition and other reliefs. The appellant contested the suit on diverse grounds. After framing appropriate issues and recording the evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. 2. Assailing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 18.07.2017, the 1st respondent/plaintiff preferred first appeal before the Additional District Court -II, Thalassery. On hearing the parties, the first appellate Court remanded the suit to the trial court with a direction to give an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence as under; “1. The appeal is allowed in part. 2. The decree and judgment in O.S.No.388/2014 passed by the Munsiff, Kuthuparamba are set aside. 3. I.A.No.2217/2018 for amendment of the plaint is allowed. 4. The suit is remanded to the court below. 5. The parties hall appear before the Court below, through counsel on 04.02.2020 at 11.00 am. 6. On such appearance, the appellant/plaintiff shall carry out the amendment of the plaint allowed I.A. 2217/2018 within seven days. 7. The respondents shall be at liberty to file additional written statements, if any, against the said calculation of shares to be incorporated by way of the said amendment(without further disputing Exts. A2 and A3 documents), about equities and reservations and to claim separation of their shares individually by paying court fees if they so desires. 8. The court below shall frame appropriate additional issues if arises on the basis of the further pleadings. 9. The parties shall be at liberty to adduce evidence also for this limited purpose. 10. After holding trial, limited in accordance with these directions, the court below shall pass a preliminary decree in the suit. 11. The parties shall bear their respective costs of the appeal.” 3. The order of remand dated 18.12.2019 was challenged by the present appellant/1st defendant by filing a regular second appeal before the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'). 11. The parties shall bear their respective costs of the appeal.” 3. The order of remand dated 18.12.2019 was challenged by the present appellant/1st defendant by filing a regular second appeal before the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'). On the administrative side, the Registry of this Court noted that a regular second appeal against a remand order is not maintainable in the light of Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri.T. Ramesh Babu and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Shri.R.Parthasarathy. 5. Order XLI of the Code provides for appeal from original decrees. The Code empowers the appellate court to pass an order of remand in three specific situations. These three specific situations are covered by Order XLI Rule 23, Order XLI Rule 23-A and Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code. In this connection, Order XLI Rule 23, 23-A and 25, which are relevant for this appeal are as under; 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, or where the Appellate Court in reversing or setting aside the decree under appeal considers it necessary in the interests of justice to remand the case, the Appellate Court may 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, with 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 to all just exceptions, be evidence during the trial after remand. 23-A. 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. 25. 23-A. 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. 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 therefore within such time as may be fixed by the Appellate Court or extended by it from time to time. 6. Going by the above rules, it is clear that Order XLI Rule 23 is invokable by the appellate court where the appeal has arisen from the decree passed on a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal. Order XLI Rule 23-A of the Act provides that the Appellate Court may remand the suit to the trial court even though such suit has been decided on merits. It provides that where the Trial Court has disposed of the suit on merits otherwise than on a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal and if the appellate court considers that re-trial is necessary, the appellate court may remand the suit to the trial court. Insofar as Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code is concerned, the appellate court continues to be in seisin of the matter and it calls upon the trial court to record the finding on some issue or issues and send that finding to the appellate court, within such time as may be fixed. 7. Going by the judgment of the trial court, it is clear that, in the case at hand, the trial court had disposed of the suit on merits and not on preliminary issue. 7. Going by the judgment of the trial court, it is clear that, in the case at hand, the trial court had disposed of the suit on merits and not on preliminary issue. In appeal, the first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and directed the trial court to decide the suit afresh, after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence, both oral and documentary, consequent to the order passed by the appellate court in I.A.2217/2018. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the remand was made for a limited purpose. Despite the fact that the remand was made for a limited purpose by the first appellate court, the nature of the order passed by the first appellate court leaves no manner of doubt for this Court that such order was passed by the first appellate court in exercise of its powers under Order XLI Rule 23-A of the Code. In the facts and circumstances involved, it is very difficult to hold that the order of remand was passed under Order XLI Rule 23 or under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code. Insofar as Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code is concerned, the power is generally invoked by the appellate court where it holds that the trial court passed the decree omitted to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact essentially to the right decision of the suit upon the merits. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the order of remand passed by the first appellate court was certainly an order of remand in exercise of its powers under Order XLI Rule 23-A of the Code. 9. Order XLIII of the Code provides for appeal from orders. Further, Clause (u) of Order XLIII Rule 1 was amended consequent upon insertion of Order XLI Rule 23-A with effect 01.02.1977. The said rule reads as under. 1. Appeal from orders.- An appeal shall lie from the following order under the provisions of Section 104, namely:- xxxx xxxx (u) an order under rule 23 or rule 23A of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court; 10. The said rule reads as under. 1. Appeal from orders.- An appeal shall lie from the following order under the provisions of Section 104, namely:- xxxx xxxx (u) an order under rule 23 or rule 23A of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court; 10. As noticed, an order of remand passed under Order XLI Rule 23-A is amenable to appeal (FAO(RO)) under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code. 11. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that this RSA is not maintainable by sustaining the objection raised by the Registry. The objection raised by the Registry is sustained. The Registry shall return this RSA to the appellant for proper presentation in accordance with the scheme of “the Code”. This RSA is ordered accordingly.