ORDER : Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None present for the respondents. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant, challenges the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1995 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur in Appeal No. 96 of 1988, partly accepting the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.1988 passed by Ist Additional Munsif Magistrate, Shahjahanpur. 3. The finding of the lower appellate court that the disputed property falls within the khasra No. 8 shumal No. 38 according to survey report is false and it is the result of misreading of evidence and wrong interpretation of the report of the survey conducted by the Civil Court Amin. 4. The Survey Amin has found that the boundary wall erected around the property which is mentioned in letters-Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha contained old bricks whose age would be assigned above fifty years and in this way the claim of Nagar Palika is totally demolished and such claim is baseless and without any substance. 5. The question of law involved is whether the finding of lower appellate court that the property in suit belongs to Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur could be sustained inspite of the fact that there is no evidence such as Khasra, Map property register or any other, document pertaining to establish. 6. The appellate court is under obligation to decide by itself the lis between the parties unless it comes to the definite finding that the matter requires leading of evidence once again by the Court below. The remand of matter which has been decided by and between the parties has to be in rarest of the rare cases. The appellate Court is under obligation to dispose of the case finally vide Order 41 Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Record is sufficient to enable the appellate Court to pronounce judgment and, therefore, it will have to decide the matter finally. This is the mandate of the Apex Court spelled out as early as 1969 in the case of Sunder Singh v. Narain Singh, 1969 SCD 900 , reiterated in Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta, (1988) 1 SCC 383 . The Appellate Court no doubt has power to remand the matter under Order 41 Rule 23 and 23 A of C.P.C. but it has to follow certain conditions which are not satisfied in the case in hand. The Appellate Court no doubt has power to remand the matter under Order 41 Rule 23 and 23 A of C.P.C. but it has to follow certain conditions which are not satisfied in the case in hand. 7. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. The first appellate Court shall decide the appeal on merits. However, as there was stay, the suit may not have been proceeded. This Court is not aware about the present status of the remanded matter. Hence, the first appellate Court shall first ascertain these facts and then decide the matter after hearing all the parties. 8. It is made clear that none present for Nagar Palika since last three years.