JUDGMENT 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dtd. 26/7/2016 in C.M.A.No.6 of 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hindupur. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and respondent herein is the sole plaintiff. Originally, O.S.No.123 of 2000 was filed for declaration of title and possession with regard to suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff was that Kotnuru Lingappa, Kotnuru Nadipi Rangappa and Kotnuru Chinna Rangappa were brothers. Kotnuru Lingappa had a son by name Narasimhappa and the plaintiff and his brother Lingappa are sons of Narasimhappa. Nadipi Rangappa had one son by name Guddamappa, who died leaving behind his wife Aswarthamma and his sons Gopalappa and Rangappa. China Rangappa had two wives Obulamma and a teacher Adilakshmamma. The petition schedule property was a self-acquired property of the teacher Adilakshmamma, who died intestate on 24/7/1985. On her death, the property devolved on the heirs of her husband. 3. The Defendant No.1 filed O.S.No.431 of 1985 before District Munsifs Court, Hindupur for permanent injunction against plaintiff and others and was granted temporary injunction in I.A.No.1271 of 1985 on 9/8/1985. The said suit was filed on the basis of a Will executed by late Adilakshmamma on 10/6/1985. The said suit was transferred to Sub-Ordinate Judges Court, Penukonda and was renumbered as O.S.No.18 of 1987 and was tried along with O.S.No.125 of 1980 and a common judgment was passed therein dismissing both suits. Defendant No.1 filed appeal A.S.No.23 of 1988 before Additional District Judges Court, Hindupur and the same was dismissed on 30/11/1988. No further appeal was filed thereon and the suit attained finality. 4. While so, Obulamma i.e wife of Chinna Rangappa executed a registered Will on 18/6/1998 bequeathing all her properties to Gopalappa and others. A settlement was arrived between the plaintiff and Aswarthamma, whereunder Aswarthamma and her sons along with Lingappa relinquished their rights in plaint schedule property by executing registered relinquishment deed dtd. 1/6/1999. In view of the relinquishment deed, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration of right and title and recovery of possession. 5. In the written statement, the defendant denied the claims on Will dtd. 18/6/1998 and that after the death of Adilakshmamma, the petitioner became the absolute owner and notwithstanding the dismissal of O.S.No.431 of 1985, the defendant pleaded that they are entitled to the suit property by adverse possession. 5. In the written statement, the defendant denied the claims on Will dtd. 18/6/1998 and that after the death of Adilakshmamma, the petitioner became the absolute owner and notwithstanding the dismissal of O.S.No.431 of 1985, the defendant pleaded that they are entitled to the suit property by adverse possession. The trial Court framed the following three issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession? 3. If so, to what relief? 6. The trial Court examined plaintiff himself as P.W.1 and B.Ranganathappa as P.W.2. On behalf of defendants D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A.1 to A.13 documents were marked. The suit was decreed on 10/12/2004 and an appeal A.S.No.9 of 2005 was filed by the defendants/petitioners herein. 7. In the appellate Court, the petitioners filed a petition I.A.No.198 of 2007 under Order 41 Rule 25 C.P.C., for framing additional issues, which reads as under: =Whether the defendants have perfected their right and title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession.' 8. The petitioners also filed I.A.No.16 of 2008 and I.A.No.58 of 2008 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to receive certified copy of decree in O.S.No.33 of 1999 and house tax demand notice apart from letter dtd. 8/7/2004 as additional evidence. The lower appellate Court considering the petitions under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., framed an issue in the trial Court and instead of remitting for finding on that issue, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the suit to lower Court with a direction to re-admit the suit in its original number and proceed to determine the suit afresh with regard to adverse possession after considering the documents which are allowed by the Court in I.A.Nos.16 and 58 of 2008. 9. The order of remand was questioned before this Court by way of S.A.No.258 of 2008 and this Court, considering that the appeal is against a remand order, converted the Second Appeal into a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the concerned District Judge was directed to adjudicate the same. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Additional District Judge, Hindupur numbered the CMA as CMA No.6 of 2015 and after hearing the case on merits, allowed the same and set aside the judgment of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur in O.S.No.9 of 2005. Hence, the civil revision petition. 10. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Additional District Judge, Hindupur numbered the CMA as CMA No.6 of 2015 and after hearing the case on merits, allowed the same and set aside the judgment of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur in O.S.No.9 of 2005. Hence, the civil revision petition. 10. The scope for consideration in the present revision is only to re-examine the correctness of the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.9 of 2005. 11. The power and the circumstances under which appeal can be remanded to the trial Court is provided under Order 41 Rule 23, 23A and 25 of C.P.C. The High Court of Madras had amended this provision vide R.O.C.No.5105 of 1930 and this High Court follows the same. The Order 41 Rule 23 C.P.C., as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh reads as under : -Rule 23: Remand of case by Appellate Court - Where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the suit on a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal, or where the Appellate Court, while reversing or setting aside the decree under appeal, considers it necessary in the interests of justice to remand the case, it 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 direction tore-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. he evidence during the trial after remand.? 12. The Sub-Rule 23A to Order 41 C.P.C. introduced pursuant to the Act 104 of 1976 does not make any material difference to this State as that power was incorporated under Order 41 Rule 23 C.P.C. as extracted above. 13. The Order 41 Rule 24 C.P.C. is a check on the power of remand of Appellate Court. The same reads as under: -Rule 24: Where evidence on record sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally. 13. The Order 41 Rule 24 C.P.C. is a check on the power of remand of Appellate Court. The same reads as under: -Rule 24: Where evidence on record sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally. - Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds.? 14. The above Sub-Rule provides that when evidence is on record, the appellate Court shall re-settle the issues and determine the suit. The evidence on record is inclusive of additional evidence received under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. Now, if the appellate Court is of opinion that findings on an issue crucial/essential for a just decision is necessary, the appellate Court may frame issues and refer to trail Court for trail and findings thereon within a certain time frame under Order 41 Rule 25 C.P.C. 15. The Order 41 Rule 24 and 25 C.P.C. circumscribe the power of remand provided Under Order 41 Rule 23 C.P.C. and the exercise of power of remand provided to appellate Court should be in exception to Order 41 Rule 24 and 25 C.P.C. In other words, the remand by appellate Court should be for exceptional reasons and only after the appellate Court records reasons vis-a-vis Order 41 Rule 24 and 25 C.P.C. for its inability to render Judgment on merits. In the absence of such exceptional reasons, the order of remand by the appellate Court should be considered as an abuse of power under Order 41 Rule 23 C.P.C. and abdication of solemn duty to adjudicate on rights of the parties to the lis. 16. The order of absolute remand hits the hope of the aspirational litigant for a quick determination of rights and every facet of procedure which has similar impact should be exercised by Courts with great care and caution keeping the aspirational litigants in mind. 17. 16. The order of absolute remand hits the hope of the aspirational litigant for a quick determination of rights and every facet of procedure which has similar impact should be exercised by Courts with great care and caution keeping the aspirational litigants in mind. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme court while considering the scope of remand in Shivakumar and Ors V. Sharanabasappa and others, AIR 2020 SC 3102 opined at para 26.4 as under: "It remains trite that order of remand is not to be passed in a routine manner because an unwarranted order of remand merely elongates the life of the litigation without serving the cause of justice." 18. Coming to the facts of the case, no reasons have been assigned by the lower appellate Court for remanding the suit to the trial Court in entirety, moreso, when the entire evidence was on record and having allowed I.A.Nos.16 and 58 of 2008 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. If the lower appellate Court was of the opinion that a fact finding on a particular issue was called for, then the lower appellate Court should have exercised power under Order 41 Rule 25 C.P.C. However, in this case, the entire evidence is on record and issue with regard to the adverse possession could have been framed by the lower appellate Court in exercise of power under Order 41 Rule 24 C.P.C, and passed its judgment thereon. 19. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the remand of suit by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.9 of 2005 is unwarranted and the lower appellate Court should have framed an issue under Order 41 Rule 24 C.P.C., and should have adjudicated the issue by itself. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Hindupur in C.M.A.No.6 of 2015. 20. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. The lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible considering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2005. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.