This appeal is against the order of remand dated 24.12.2003 passed in Title Appeal No.23 of 1994, whereby learned Vth Additional District Judge, Palamau has framed a new issue and remanded to the trial court for deciding the same. The issue framed by learned court is “whether any forgery was the motive factor of such orders and whether any forgery was committed in Exbt.D/6/1.”

2. The sole ground taken by the appellant is that the said issue does not at all arise in the suit between the parties being title Suit No.102 of 1966 and the order of remand is wholly misconceived contrary to law and liable to be set aside.

3. In the suit, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had only appeared and filed written statement. The State of Bihar was a party, but did not appear in the suit.

4. In their written statement, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had taken several grounds for contesting the suit. But there was no pleading alleging forgery of revenue record (Exbt.D/6/1).

5. In order to appreciate the said ground of the appellant, the pleadings of the parties in the suit are required to be seen.

6. The appellant was the plaintiff in the court below. He had filed the said Title Suit No.102 of 1966 in the