JUDGMENT : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, ACJ. 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the petition filed by the appellants, assailing the order of the Board of Revenue, has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, relevant factual matrix of the case for adjudication of controversy involved in this appeal is that the appellants had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents, which was decreed by the Revenue Court in the year 2004 and appeal was also dismissed. When the matter was taken in second appeal before the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 13.08.2004, the Board of Revenue remanded the case for re-trial directing two additional issues to be framed. That order was challenged before learned Single Judge, though unsuccessful. That is how this appeal has been preferred. 4. The decree passed in the Revenue Suit on 27.02.2004 shows that the Court at first instance had framed as many as five issues and on all those issues findings were recorded after giving the parties opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. 5. The Board of Revenue, while considering on merits the second appeal, had recorded a finding that the case required two additional issues to be framed. One relates to the issue of possession and the other relates to accrual of khatedari rights by Mahant Shiv Prakash Chandra Bhattacharya vis-a-vis that of the deity Shri Sheela Mataji Amber. The basis for such a direction for re-trial with framing of two additional issues is that the trial court has not framed any issue with regard to possession, nor issue of adverse possession has been determined. Further, it has been stated that in the order that manner in which the res judicata has been decided is more or less perfunctory in nature without due consideration. Only on these two considerations, the Board of Revenue directed framing of two additional issues and directed re-trial. 6. In our opinion, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is clearly in excess of jurisdiction as also patently illegal and perverse in law. The judgment and decree of the learned trial court passed on 27.02.2004 clearly shows that not only an issue touching upon the possession was framed but also an issue of res judicata was also framed. In our opinion, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is clearly in excess of jurisdiction as also patently illegal and perverse in law. The judgment and decree of the learned trial court passed on 27.02.2004 clearly shows that not only an issue touching upon the possession was framed but also an issue of res judicata was also framed. This is clear from the issues framed by the trial court which are as below: ^^1- vk;k oknhx.k] nkos ds en ua0 esa of.kZr vjkth;kr ds [kkrsnkj dkLrdkj dh fMØh ikus ds gdnkj gS ,oa izfroknhx.k dks LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djkus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA 2- vk;k oknhx.k ds nkok nk;jh dk dkj.k fnukad 17&12&94 dks izfroknh }kjk iRFkjxh djkus ds dkj.k gqvkA 3- vk;k oknhx.k us ,d nkok LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk o izk0i= vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk U;k;ky; gktk }kjk fnukad 20&2&97 dksa [kkfjt gks pqdk gS] o U;k;ky; gktk ds fu.kZ; dh vihy 29&7&99 dks [kkfjt gks pqdh gSA 4- vk;k vihysV dksVZ us vius fu.kZ; esa fookfnr Hkwfe ij dCtk] izfroknh la0 1 dk ekuk gS ] bl dkj.k oknhx.k nkok gktk esa ih vkbZ dhnknjlh ikuh ds gdnkj ugha gSA 5- vk;k oknhx.k ds firk ?khlk iq= ekaX;k ehikus o ?khlk us iwoZ esa U;k;ky; gktk esa okn Lfkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ,oa ?kks"k.kkRed is'k fd;k Fkk tks iwoZ esa [kkfjt gks pqdk gS o mDr fu.kZ; jslT;wfMdsV gS] o mDr okn dkuwuu pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA** 7. Issue No. 4 clearly related to an issue of possession. We also find that the learned trial court as also the appellate court both have gone into the issue of possession after taking into consideration the evidence on record and recorded their specific finding in this regard. We failed to understand how the Board of Revenue, in such a case, could invoke its jurisdiction to frame an additional issue when the issue relating to possession was not only framed but also determined, one way or the other. It was for the Board of Revenue to apply its mind as the second appellate authority to the pleadings and evidence on record led by the respective parties and come to the conclusion one way or the other as to whether the issue with regard to possession was rightly determined or not. 8. It was for the Board of Revenue to apply its mind as the second appellate authority to the pleadings and evidence on record led by the respective parties and come to the conclusion one way or the other as to whether the issue with regard to possession was rightly determined or not. 8. Furthermore, we find that the trial court as well as first appellate court both have determined the issue of res judicata as well, as to whether the suit was barred by res judicata. A specific issue No. 5 was framed and the trial court as well as the appellate court both recorded findings on the same. The Board of Revenue, while sitting in second appeal, failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under the law in examining the material on record in the form of pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. Instead of deciding itself, the second appellate authority/Board of Revenue proceeded to frame two additional issues. The issue of possession was already covered under issue No. 4 framed by the trial court. The other issue with regard to khatedari rights, was not at all required to be framed. The issues were framed by the trial court based on the pleadings of the parties. Once the plaintiffs had claimed that he was entitled to appropriate declaration of his khatedari rights, the trial court was only required to decide as to whether the plaintiff succeeded in establishing his case on the basis of its pleadings and evidence on record. Directing framing of two additional issue as to whether the other persons or the deity had khatedari rights, was not at all necessary. The Board of Revenue committed patent illegality and perversity in framing an issue which was not required to be separately framed and decided. 9. The power of remand could be exercised within four corners of the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 23A, 24 & 25 CPC and not beyond the same. It was not at all a case of re-trial. The issue with regard to possession and res judicata, had been considered and decided by the trial court as well as first appellate court. The Board of Revenue ought to have examined the correctness of those findings after application of mind to the pleadings and evidence on record. 10. It was not at all a case of re-trial. The issue with regard to possession and res judicata, had been considered and decided by the trial court as well as first appellate court. The Board of Revenue ought to have examined the correctness of those findings after application of mind to the pleadings and evidence on record. 10. The order of the Board of Revenue, viewed from any angle, cannot be sustained in law. It suffers from jurisdictional error and patently illegal and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. In view of above consideration, we are inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also of the Board of Revenue dated 13.08.2004. 12. The Board of Revenue is directed to decide the second appeal on its own merits in the light of the observations made here-in-above, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 13. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.