An order of remand under Section 151, C. P. C. is not appealable but revisable.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision is directed against an order of remand passed under section 151, Civil Procedure Code. When it was placed before a learned single judge, the opposite party No. 2 (defendant No. 2) contended, on the authority of a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sarder Bauri Bisoyi v. (Smt.)Surekha Sahuani, ILR (1974) Cut 1433, that the order of remand was appealable and the Civil Revision was not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner having challenged the correctness of the Bench decision, the learned single Judge directed that the case may be placed before a learned Bench for a decision on the question of maintainability of the Civil Revision. Thereafter, the civil Revision was placed before a Division Bench which referred it to a Full bench as the correctness of the Bench decision was doubted.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this Civil Revision, in a nutshell, are as under: the petitioner as plaintiff brought O. S. No. 30/102 of 1974/69 for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit lands on the allegation that the suit lands originally belonged to opposite party No. 1 (defendant No. 1) who sold the same to the plaintiff (petitioner) by a registered sale deed dated 26-6-67 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000. It was alleged that out of the total consideration, a sum of Rs. 1,500 was received by the defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff in presence of the Sub-Registrar and it was agreed between them that the balance consideration of Rs. 500 would be paid at the time of endorsement of the registration ticket. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 received the balance consideration of Rs. 500 on 25-8-67 and promised to endorse the registration ticket and to deliver possession of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff, but he failed to do so despite, repeated demands. It was further alleged that defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 2 had executed a nominal sale deed in favour of the latter with a view to defraud the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff was compelled to come to Court.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 did not enter contest. Defendant No. 2 resisted the suit on the allegation that defendant No, I had executed an agreement for sale in his favour on 4-6-67 for a consideration of Rs. 1,500 and had received Rs. 1,300 from him towards part consideration and delivered possession of the suit lands promising to execute the sale deed in his favour within a month after receiving the balance consideration of Rs. 200. Thereafter, defendant No. 1' executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 18-3-68 on receipt of Rs. 200. While admitting the execution of the sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 2 disputed the passing of title thereunder.

( 4 ) THE trial Court decided all the nine issues framed in the suit and came to hold that the agreement of sale in favour of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1 was neither genuine nor valid and that the sale deed Ext. 1 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff was not to defeat the contract of sale (Ext. B), Accordingly, it decreed the plaintiffs suit.

( 5 ) ON appeal by defendant No. 2, the lower appellate Court by its judgment dated 2-12-76 set aside the decision of the trial Court and remanded the suit for fresh disposal after framing two new issues and allowed the parties to adduce evidence on those two issues. The Civil Revision is directed against the aforesaid order of remand.

( 6 ) THE question for consideration is whether an appeal lies against the aforesaid order of remand and whether the Civil Revision is incompetent.

( 7 ) IN Bisoyi's case (ILR (1974) Cut 1433) the Division Bench held that the order of remand came within the ambit of Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P. C. Yet, it was observed:

"even otherwise, if this order of remand is treated as one made in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court, that order so made would be a decree which reversed the decree o