The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lower appellate Court erred in remanding the matter back without proper consideration of the legal provisions and without justifying the remand.

This Appeal from Order takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2012 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 358 of 2001 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded. By the impugned judgment and order, the lower appellate Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9th December, 2001 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded in R.C.S. No. 302 of 1998 with direction to decide the suit afresh by taking into consideration Issue Nos. 1 to 8 framed by the lower appellate Court.

2. An order of remand passed under Order 41, Rule 23A is amenable to appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, can only be heard on the grounds enumerated in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Narayanan vs. Kumaran and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 26 and in the case of Jegannathanvs. Raju Sigamani and another reported in 2012(5) Mh.L.J. 1.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited my attention to the substantial questions of law/grounds taken in the Appeal from Order and submitted that, the lower appellate Court has only framed two points for its consideration. In fact, all the relevant points should have been framed by the lower appellate Court for its consideration/determination. It is submitted that, Order 14 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates framing of issues. The issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by other. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. It is submitted that, at the first hearing of the suit, the Court shall after reading the plaint and written statement, if any, shall proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend.

4. It is submitted that, in the present case, the suit was filed in the year 1998 and written statement was filed in the year 1999 and after considering the rival contention, the learned Judge has framed the issues. The Counsel appearing for the appellant invited my attention to the issues framed by the trial Court and submitted that, all the issues have been properly considered and dealt with by the trial Court. This suit was filed for declaration of ownership of land Gat No. 113 as particularly described in plaint and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their persons from causing any obstruction. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 was owner and possessor of the land Gat No. 113 and he has purchased 65 Are land within four boundaries as described in the plaint by executing registered sale deed for consideration of Rs.60,000/- on 24th December, 1997. It is submitted that, after execution of the registered sale deed, Mutation Entry No. 314 came to be effected on 8th January, 1998. Thus, the appellant is in possession on the basis of registered sale deed and is also having title. The respondents were obstructing possession and hence, the suit came to be filed.

It is further submitted that, in the written statement filed by the defendants, the defendants came with a plea that, the defendants have borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and in view of security, the document came to be executed. The defendants claim that, possession was not transferred to the plaintiff and the Mutation entry was behind the back of the defendants. It is submitted that, from reading of the plaint and the written statement, the learned Judge has rightly framed the issues. The issue No. A pertains to the title and Issue No. B pertains to the possession and the controversy in the suit revolves around these two main issues. The trial Court has considered these issues and decreed the suit. It is submitted that, the lower appellate Court ought to have seen that, issues appears to have been framed long back at Exhibit-28 by the trial Court and there