JUDGMENT : 1. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Karauli (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’) whereby the civil appeal No. 9/2009 filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and after setting aside the judgment dated 06.12.2001 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karauli (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 170/1992, the case was remitted back to the trial Court for fresh decision after framing an additional issue. 2. The facts in brief of the case which are relevant for adjudication of this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the defendants appellants before the trial Court against which the defendants appellants submitted written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as seven issues including issue No.5 i.e. ‘in absence of any premises the plaintiff would suffer inconvenience in comparison to the defendants’. The trial Court partly decreed the suit and directed the defendants to pay the arrears of rent and the prayer for eviction was declined. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.12.2001, the plaintiff-respondent submitted an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was allowed and the First Appellate Court framed an additional issue and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2001 passed by the trial Court and directed the trial Court to decide this additional issue after taking evidence of both sides as per law. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants appellants submitted that there was no need to frame an additional issue. Both the parties had gone through the trial fully knowing the rival cases and had led all evidence in support of their case. Counsel further submitted that no such request for framing additional issue was ever made by the plaintiff before the trial Court where the suit remained pending for about nine years. Counsel further submitted that full fledged, thorough and detailed cross-examination was made in this regard from the witnesses and even this issue was already decided by the trial Court while deciding issue No. 5. Counsel further submitted that full fledged, thorough and detailed cross-examination was made in this regard from the witnesses and even this issue was already decided by the trial Court while deciding issue No. 5. Counsel for the defendants-appellants has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J.Lingaiah and Ors. Vs. G. Hanumanthappa and Ors., reported in (2001) 10 SCC 751 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed and set aside the order of remand by the Appellate Court to the trial Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that during pendency of the suit, construction was carried out by the defendants-appellants near Sainath Khidkiya and for that purpose an amended suit was submitted before the trial Court and the trial Court did not frame any additional issue and erroneously partly rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Counsel further submitted that no illegality has been committed by the First Appellate Court by way of framing additional issue in this regard and no illegality has been committed by the First Appellate Court in remanding the matter to the trial Court for deciding this additional issue after granting opportunity to both sides and deciding the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent has supported the order passed by the First Appellate Court. 6. Heard. Considered the arguments raised by counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned order and gone through the record of the case. 7. Rules 23, 23-A, 24, 25 and 26 of Order 41 C.P.C. deal with the remand of cases by the appellate court. Rule 23 deals with a case of remand where the suit has been disposed of on a preliminary point and Rule 23-A which was inserted by CPC Amendment Act of 1976 deals with the powers of the appellate court with regard to remand in cases disposed of otherwise on a preliminary point and provides that the appellate court shall have the same powers of remand as under Rule 23. Rule 24 enables and empowers the appellate court if the evidence on record is sufficient to pronounce judgment even after resettling the issue, if necessary. Rule 24 enables and empowers the appellate court if the evidence on record is sufficient to pronounce judgment even after resettling the issue, if necessary. Rule 25 deals with the cases where it appears to the appellate court that the trial court has omitted to frame or try an issue or to determine any question of fact which is essential to the right decision of the suit on merits, the appellate court may, if necessary, frame such an issue and refer the same for trial to the court below and in such case it shall direct such court to try such issue and to return the evidence together with its findings thereon and reasons therefor within the time fixed by it or extended by it. 8. In P. Purushottam Reddy vs. Pratap Steels Ltd., reported in (2002) 2 SCC 686 , the Hon'ble Apex Court have considered these rules and have held as under : 'Prior to the insertion of Rule 23-A in Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the CPC Amendment Act, 1976, there were only two provisions contemplating remand by a court of appeal in Order 41 CPC. Rule 23 applies when the trial Court disposes of the entire suit by recording its findings on a preliminary issue without deciding other issues and the finding on preliminary issue is reversed in appeal. Rule 25 applies when the appellate court notices an omission on the part of the trial court to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact which in the opinion of the appellate court was essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits. However, the remand contemplated by Rule 25 is a limited remand inasmuch as the subordinate court can try only such issues as are referred to it for trial and having done so, the evidence recorded, together with findings and reasons therefor of the trial Court, are required to be returned to the appellate court. However, still it was a settled position of law before the 1876 Amendment that the Court, in an appropriate case could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to order a remand if such a remand was considered pre-eminently necessary ex debito justitiae, though not covered by any specific provision of Order 41 CPC. However, still it was a settled position of law before the 1876 Amendment that the Court, in an appropriate case could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to order a remand if such a remand was considered pre-eminently necessary ex debito justitiae, though not covered by any specific provision of Order 41 CPC. In cases where additional evidence is required to be taken in the event of any one of the clauses of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 being attracted, such additional evidence, oral or documentary is allowed to be produced either before the appellate court itself or by directing any court subordinate to the appellate court to receive such evidence and send it to the appellate court. In 1976, Rule 23-A has been inserted in Order 41 which provides for a remand by an appellate court hearing an appeal against a decree if (i) the trial court disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and (ii) the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary. On twin conditions being satisfied, the appellate court can exercise the same power of remand under Rule 23-A as it is under Rule 23. After the amendment, all the cases of wholesale remand are covered by Rules 23 and 23-A. In view of the express provisions of these recourse to its inherent powers to make a remand because, as held in Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati ( AIR 1965 SC 364 ), it is well settled that inherent power can be availed of ex debito justitia only in the absence of express provisions in the Code. It is only in exceptional cases where the court may now exercise the power of remand dehors Rule 23 and 23-A. To wit, the superior court, if it finds that the judgment under appeal has not disposed of the case satisfactorily in the manner required by Order 20 Rule 3 or Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and hence it is no judgment in the eye of law, it may set aside the same and sent the matter back for rewriting the judgment so as to protect valuable rights of the parties. An appellate court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule 23-A or Rule 25 CPC. An appellate court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule 23-A or Rule 25 CPC. An unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life and, therefore, must be avoided.’ 9. Thus, it is apparent and well settled that where the evidence on record is sufficient to decide the matter and controversy in between the parties, the appellate Court should not remit the case to the trial Court. It should itself decide the matter. If it is necessary to frame additional issue, the appellate court can very well frame issues which appear to it necessary and then decide the matter on the evidence on record if there is sufficient evidence. But even where it comes to the conclusion that some important issue has been left out or omitted by the trial court and it is essential to frame such an issue and the evidence on, such an issue has not been led by the parties or is in-sufficient, then it can very well frame additional issue and remit the additional issue/issues for taking evidence on the additional issue/issues with the direction to send back evidence along with findings on such issue but it does not empower the appellate court to set aside the entire judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the procedure for decision on the additional issue has also been given in Rule 26 of Order 41 CPC. 10. In the instant case, the First Appellate Court has completely ignored and given a go-bye to the aforesaid provisions of law and it has set aside the entire judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which it was not competent to do so as per the aforesaid provisions and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this behalf. 11. In the instant case, the parties appeared to have led evidence knowing fully well the case of each other. All the documents have also come on record including the amended suit. 11. In the instant case, the parties appeared to have led evidence knowing fully well the case of each other. All the documents have also come on record including the amended suit. Though the trial Court has taken a note of the fact of the subsequent circumstances occurred during pendency of the suit while deciding issue No.5, but if at all the First Appellate Court was not convinced with a finding so recorded by the trial Court on issue No.5, the First Appellate Court could have decided this issue by exercising its appellate jurisdiction instead of remitting the matter back to the trial Court for a fresh decision. 12. The First Appellate Court appears to have not kept in view the relevant provisions under which it could remand the case and quash the entire judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and after framing the additional issue remitted the case for deciding it afresh which is neither justified and warranted nor sustainable on the face of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as indicated above. 13. This appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the First Appellate Court quashing the entire judgment and decree and remitting the case back to the trial Court with a direction to take additional evidence and to decide the suit afresh, is quashed and set aside. The appeal shall be restored to its original number before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court is directed to decide the additional issue so framed by itself in accordance with law. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 22.07.2022. 15. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 16. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case forthwith.