JUDGMENT :

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J.

This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order dated 06.10.2017, passed in First Appeal No. 04/2015 decided by ADJ No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

2. The appeal was filed by the respondents challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 passed in favour of the appellant.

3. The Appellate Court by the impugned order has held that the Court below had failed to frame an important issue in the suit and by framing an additional issue, the Appellate Court quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court by framing new issue as Issue No. 1 and both the parties were directed to lead oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court and further the finding was again required to be given by the Trial court on issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 7 as were originally framed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court had also directed the Trial Court to decide the suit within one year.

4. The appellant feeling aggrieved against quashing of judgment and decree passed in his favour, assails the impugned order, primarily on the ground of violation of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that if the Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that an important issue was not framed by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court had power to frame an additional issue and to that extent, the matter could have been remanded back by taking fresh evidence on the newly framed issue and then the matter was required to be sent back to the Appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Court has committed an error in quashing and set aside the entire judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 and further wrongly gave direction to decide issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 7 afresh.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the power of the Appellate Court in framing issue and then refer them for Trial to the Civil Court, is very well defined under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC and the Appellate Court without considering the relevant provision of law, has passed the order.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire reading of the impugned order dated 06.07.2017, is based on the ground that an important issue was left out and the same was required to be framed as an additional issue and evidence on the same issue, could be collected by the Trial Court.

9. Learned counsel submitted that there was no basis to ask for findings on the issues, which were already decided as issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 7 by the Trial Court.

10. Learned counsel Mr. Kapil Gupta appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the Appellate Court in passing the order of remanding the matter back by the Appellate Court to the Trial Court and further the finding on issues No. 1, 2, 4 & 7 is required to be given again in view of additional issue, which has been framed by the Appellate Court.

11. Learned counsel submitted that there will be inconsistent finding on issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 7 if maintained, as was passed in the original judgment and decree.

12. Learned counsel submitted that once the additional issue is to be decided again by the Trial Court, necessarily the other connected issues, needs separate finding by the Trial Court again.

13. Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellate Court has exercised its power by permitting to lead evidence on the newly framed additional issue only and as such no direction has been given to lead fresh evidence on the issues, which were already framed and decided.

14. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Court has not given any power to the Trial Court to take evidence again on all the issues and as such the appellant has come before this Court on apprehensions.

15. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 was required to be set aside in toto otherwise the findings, which would be recorded