Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.

The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant under Order 43, Rule 1 read with Section 104 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 11.9.2015 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Salumber, District Udaipur in Appeal No. 26/2012 whereby the learned appellate court though allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, but while observing that judgment and decree of the learned trial court is liable to be dismissed, yet instead of decreeing the suit, remanded the matter to the learned trial court for rehearing and re-deciding the matter while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 12.10.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.59/2014.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned lower appellate court committed an error of law in remaining the matter to the learned trial court because as per Order 41, Rule 23 and 23A of CPC the remand order can be made where the appellate court considers that retrial of the case is necessary, but from perusal of the impugned judgment of appellate court it is clear that neither any direction has been given nor any observation has been made for retrial of the case is necessary, therefore, the appellate court was under obligation to decide the appeal on its merit.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court if there are already evidence on record than the appellate court should decide the matter on merit in stead of re d of remanding the matter to the learned trial court for deciding the matter afresh as the appellate court itself is having jurisdiction to decide the case on merit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwin Kumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel & Ors reported in 1999 DNJ (SC) 207 and submits that the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment is totally erroneous because the learned trial court accepted that there is an evidence in favour of the appellant, therefore the judgment of the lower appellate court may kindly be quashed and the suit filed by the appellant plaintiff may kindly be decreed as prayed in the suit.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I have perused the finding given by the learned appellate court, which reads as under:-

^^vihykFkhZ ioZr flag us fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa izkFkZuki= izLrqr dj o"kZ 2002 esa mls fcykuke fd fdLe vkcknh mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ls ntZ djk;k gS bl izdkj tc fcykuke Hkwfe ml le; ntZ Fkh rks ljiap dks iV~Vk tkjh djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha FkkA

bl izdj.k esa izHkkjh fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh lywEcj ds uke iV~Vk tkjh fd;k tkuk crk;k gS ysfdu og izdj.k esa i{kdkj ugha FkkA vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls bl laca/k esa vkifRr dh xbZ gS ysfdu fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl vkifRr dk rRle; fujkdj.k ugha fd;k gS tcfd vkns'k 01 fu;e 13 tkånhå ds vuqlkj i{kdkj ds laca/k esa izkFkfed Lrj ij gh ,slh vkifRr;ksa dk fujkdj.k djuk vko';d gSA U;k;ky; Lo;a Hkh fdlh vko';d i{kdkj dks la;ksftr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ns ldrk gS ysfdu ;g U;kf;d izfdz;k ds fcYdqy foijhr gS fd vafre Lrj ij i{kdkj u gksus ds vk/kkj ij vuqrks"k iznku ugha fd;k tk,A bl izdj.k esa fookfnr Hkwfe ij miLokLF; dsUnz cuk;k tkuk crk;k gSA miLokLF; dsUnz cuk;k tkuk crk;k gSA miLokLF; dsUnz xzke iapk;r }kjk cuk;k tkuk crk;k gS] ysfdu mDr miLokLF; dsUnz ds laca/k esa /kujkf'k Lohd`fr gksus] [kpZ gksus vkfn ds fy;s dksbZ Hkh fo'oluh; lk{; i=koyh ij izLrqr ugha dh gSA ;g vR;Ur gh vk'p;Ztud gS fd xzkeoklh ;g dgrs gSa fd mDr fuekZ.k mDr xzke iapk;r }kjk fd;k x;k gksA xzke iapk;r ds ikl ,sls fuekZ.k dk;Z ds laca/k esa dksbZ /ku laca/kh] Lohd`fr laca/kh bR;kfn fdlh izdkj dh lk{; ugha gSA dfFkr fuekZ.k dk;Z okn nk;j djus ds le; gh izkjEHk gqvk gSA fof/kd n`"VkUr&neu xksMk o vU; cuke j.kok o vU; 1992¼2½ lhå,yå,å 29 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; dukZVd mPp U;k;ky; us ;g fl)kUr izfrik