JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, two connected second appeals against the First Appellate Court's order remitting the matter back to the trial Court for fresh decision shall stand disposed of by this common order.

2. There are following two partnership firms:-

The names of its partners alongwith their shares are as below:-

The names of its partners alongwith their shares are as below:-

3. Two suits were filed for rendition of accounts, in which, preliminary decree was passed as the defendants agreed to render the accounts as per balance-sheet dated 31.03.2003. The preliminary decree in both the suits were passed on 02.09.2008. The proceedings for final decree were initiated. The Executing Court amalgamated immovable properties of both the firms and thereafter proceeded to divide them by metes and bounds. Against the final decree, two appeals were preferred. The First Appellate Court found that the process adopted to divide the property and rendition of accounts is not correct, hence, remitted the matter back to the trial Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper-book.

5. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the Appellate Court was well within its power to take corrective measures to separately divide the properties of both the firms rather than amalgamating the properties of two firms. He submits that the Appellate Court cannot remit the matter back unless the requirements of Order 41 Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , are fulfilled.

6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that there are multiple errors in the final decree passed by the Court.

7. The enabling power of the First Appellate Court to remit the matter back to the lower Court is regulated by Order 41 Rule 23 and 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , which has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Purushottam Reddy and Another v. Pratap Steels Ltd. . (2002) 2 SCC 686 , in the following manner :-

'10. The next question to be examined is the legality and propriety of the order of remand made by the High Court. Prior to the insertion of Rule 23A in Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure by CPC Amendment Act 1976, there were only two provisions contemplating remand by a court of appeal in Order XLI of CPC. Rule 23 applies when the trial court disposes of the entire suit by recording its findings on a preliminary issue without deciding other issues and the finding on preliminary issue is reversed in appeal. Rule 25 applies when the appellate court notices an omission on the part of the trial court to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact which in the opinion of the appellate court was essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits. However, the remand contemplated by Rule 25 is a limited remand in as much as the subordinate court can try only such issues as are referred to it for trial and having done so the evidence recorded together with findings and reasons therefore of the trial court, are required to be returned to the appellate court. However, still it was a settled position of law before 1976 Amendment that the court, in an appropriate case could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to order a remand it such a remand was considered pre-eminently necessary ex debito justitiae, though not covered by any specific provision of Order 11 of the CPC. In cases whe