The main legal point established in the judgment is that the first appellate Court can remand the case to the trial Court only if it falls within the ambit of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC, and that the appellate Court should work out the legal consequences and decide the matter itself if there is sufficient evidence on record, instead of sending the case back to the trial Court without any legal basis.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal filed by Jagtar Singh son of Shankar Singh and his son-Gurdip Singh, appellants-defendants (herein after to be referred as "the defendants"), is to the judgment dated 20.11.2008, vide which the first appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2008 of the trial Court and remanded the case back to it for its fresh decision.

2. The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Bachan Singh and others, respondents-plaintiffs (for brevity "the plaintiffs") filed the suit against the defendants, for a decree of possession pf the disputed property, denominated and described in the plaint, situated in village Bareke, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, on the basis of title. Levelling a variety of allegations in all according to the plaintiffs, they are owners of the suit property, but the defendants are in its unauthorised possession. They asked the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property, but in vain, which necessitated them to file the present suit. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for decree of possession against the defendants, in the manner in dicated here in above.

3. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading ertain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiffs and limitation etc. On merits, it was, inter alia, claimed that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the suit property. They have constructed their residential houses about 35/40 years back, when the village New Bare Ke was established. The defendants admitted their possession as owners over the suit property. Succinctly, according to the defendants, they are the owners in possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs have got no right, title or interest in it. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication.

5. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession of the suit property as detailed in the title of the suit? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 4. Relief.

6 The parties produced on record the oral as well as the documentary evidence to prove their respective pleas.

7. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record, decreed the suit and granted a decree of possession of the disputed property in favour of the plaintiffs vide impugned judgment and decree dated 06.05.2008.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellants-defendants filed the appeal, which was accepted by the first appellate Court and the case was remitted back to the trial Court for fresh decision vide impugned judgment dated 20.11.2008.

9. Although, the appeal of the appellants-defendants was accepted and the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside by the first appellate Court, but still they did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court and filed the present appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter.

10. As strange, as it may seem, but strictly speaking the tendency and frequency of the lower appellate courts in remanding the cases, without any legal basis, in order to show the disposal of the appeals, is increasing day by day and the case in hand is the burning example of such cases.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the