The appellate Court cannot set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remand the case without specific findings on the issues and without considering the findings given by the trial Court on the issues.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal against the order passed by the first Appellate Court on 1-5-2000 wherein while reversing the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 1 and 2, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration and claimed permanent injunction and consequential relief. The Court has framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the decree dated 4-2-1991 suffered by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 9 in Civil Suit No. 613/90 from the Court of Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, the then Sub Judge, Karnal is wrong, illegal, null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff and the same is liable to be set aside on the grounds taken in para No. 3 of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants on the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

7. Whether the suit has been filed against Nihal Chand a dead person, if so its effect? OPD

8. Relief."

3. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were taken up together by the learned trial Court and it was held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and the decree was obtained by the defendant without impleading him and by keeping the Court in dark. Both the issues were thus decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. So were issues Nos. 4 to 6. Consequently the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

4. The first Appellate Court held that the trial Court has not given any specific finding on the controversy between the parties under issue No. 1 and that finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2 is not tenable and, therefore, the matter under both the issues require fresh decision. Consequently, the learned first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 1 and 2 and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

5. In the present appeal the grievance of the appellant is that the learned first Appellate Court is required to decide issues Nos. 1 and 2 by itself or if necessary call for the report from the learned trial Court. However, the findings recorded by the trial Court on issues Nos. 3 and that 4 to 6 could not be set aside without giving any reason and the matter remitted to the trial Court for fresh decision.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Kartar Singh V/s. Punjab and Sind Bank with its Branch Office at Malout Mandi, 1987 (92) Pun LR 92, Ajit Singh V/s. Dhari, 1991 (2) Pun LR 210, Nirbhay Singh V/s. Gurdev Singh, 1991 (2) Pun LR 687 and P. Purushottam Reddy V/s. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 686 : AIR 2002 SC 771 to contend that the appellate Court cannot remand the case by setting aside the judgment and decree merely because the additional evidence is required to be taken by the appellate Court. In the present case it is not even the finding of the first Appellate Court that some additional evidence is required in the absence of which the Appellate Court cannot pass the judgment. In Kartar Singh s case (supra) it has been held to the following effect :-

"8. It has been held in Smt. Dhapan V/s. Vijay Singh that an order under Order XLI, Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, pre-supposes that if the decree is reversed in appeal and if retrial is considered necessary, only then the power of remand is to be exercised by the appellate Court. The said rule does not authorise it to reverse the decree as a matter of course whenever the Court thinks that on some issues retrial