The respondent herein filed O.S.No.163 of 2001 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against the appellant, for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,21,819=50 ps., towards the cost of pesticides, supplied to the appellant. In the written-statement filed by the appellant, existence of transactions of supply of pesticides, on various occasions, was admitted, and it was contended that there are no outstanding dues. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment dated 17-02-2003. Thereupon, the respondent filed A.S.No.52 of 2003 in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal, according to law. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (u) of C.P.C.

2. Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the lower Appellate Court directed remand of the case, as though it is a matter of course. He contends that the observations and findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court warranted dismissal of the appeal; whereas the discretion vested in it, under Rule 23-A of Order XLI C.P.C., was used, without there being any factual basis for it.

3. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the lower Appellate Court had undertaken extensive discussion of the pleadings and evidence on record, and expressed the view, that it is a fit case for remand. He contends that the appellant cannot be said to have suffered any prejudice, on account of the remand.

4. The only question that arises for consideration in this C.M.A. is, as to whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court.

5. It is not necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties in the suit, in detail. It was a claim for recovery of money on the basis of business transactions. The appellant resisted the claim on several grounds, such as, limitation, usurious nature of interest, lack of territorial jurisdiction in the Court, etc. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. "Whether there was any 'running account' between the plaintiff and defendant ? 2. Whether interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious and excessive ? 3. Whether suit claim is barred by limitation ? 4. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for" ?

6. On behalf of the respondent, one Mr.Sreedhar was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-59 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, its proprietor was examined as DW-1, and no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court found that it has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit; that the claim is not barred by limitation, and that the interest claimed by the respondent, cannot be treated as usurious. It, however, dismissed the suit, on the ground that the respondent failed to prove the transactions, or the existence of dues. The lower Appellate Court framed only one point, for its consideration, and ultimately remanded the matter to the trial Court, by allowing the appeal.

7. An Appellate Court is conferred with very wide powers, to re-appreciate the matter, both on questions of fact and law. An appeal is treated as continuation of a suit. The amplitude of the power of the Appellate Court can be discerned from a perusal of Rules 23 to 29 of Order XLI C.P.C. Where the evidence on record is sufficient, but the Court finds that issues have not been properly framed by the trial Court, it is vested with the power, to resettle the issues and determine the appeal, under Rule 24. On the other hand, if a suit has been decided by the trial Court by answering a preliminary issue, or points, and the lower appellate Court takes a different view, it may remand the case to the trial Court, if necessary, by directing, what issues shall be tried in