JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

^^fygktk vihy vihykFkhZ ÁLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd vihy vihykFkhZ lO;; Lohdkj dh tkdj v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh dks vikLr fd;s tkus dh vkKk Ánku djkos ,oa ekeyk iqu% v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; dks xq.kkoxq.k ij fuf.kZr djus gsrq ÁfrÁsf"kr fd;k tkosA**

2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking compensation against the respondents, the same was decreed by the learned trial court on 01.09.1997. The respondent filed an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. However, the said appeal was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur. During pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by both the parties under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to take a particular decision, which was relevant, on record before deciding the said appeal. The decision to be taken on record was dated 17.05.1999.

3. The learned appellate court, while taking the aforementioned decision on record, remanded the matter back to the learned trial court to consider the said document dated 17.05.1999 on record, before arriving at a final conclusion.

4. Mr.R.K. Thanvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi for the appellant made a limited submission that Order 41 Rule 23 CPC requires the learned appellate court to have arrived at a conclusion that the order passed by the learned trial court was wrong, before remanding the matter back. Thus, as per learned Senior Counsel, the said remand order, without reaching to such conclusion, was contrary to law.

5. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gangi Vs. Gian Kaur & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 175, relevant portion of which reads as under:

“10. The Appellate Court cannot make order of remand without coming to a conclusion that the decision of the trial Court is wrong and that it is necessary to reverse or set aside the judgment and decree. It has to consider the evidence on record and then arrive at a conclusion whether the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be supported on evidence on record. The Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the judgment of the trial Court merely for the purpose of remanding the case. The course adopted by it has to be deprecated. This Court has said time and again that remand should be ordered when the case falls within the four corners of O. 41, R. 23 or 23-A, Civil P.C. and final judgment cannot be rendered by resorting to the provisions of O. 41, Rr. 24 and 25, Civil P.C. It was unnecessary to frame the additional issue with regard to the validity of the compromise, Exhibit DW8/A. The parties were fully alive to the issue regarding the validity of the alleged compromise. They led evidence on this point and the trial Court, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion thatthe compromise had no sanctity in the eye of law. This finding of the trial Court was open to challenge before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court could have reversed the same if it was so justified on facts.”

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in RSRTC & Anr. Vs. Haridwarilal Sharma, reported in 2014(1) Civil Court Cases 802 (Rajasthan), relevant portion of which reads as under:

“7. In view of the above stated legal position, the powers of remand could be exercised by the appellate court either under Rule 23 or under Rule 23-A of Order XLI. While Rule 23 could be exercised when the suit is disposed of by the trial court on a preliminary issue, Rule 23-A could be invoked when the suit is disposed of otherwise than on preliminary point and when the decree is reversed in appeal, and the retrial is found necessary by the appellate court. In the instant case, from the submissions made by the learn