JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akbar Ali Khan and Mohd. Shadab Khan, Advocates, holding brief of Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal under Order-XLIII, Rule-1(u) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (here-in-after referred as C.P.C.) has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Sitapur in Civil Appeal No.105 of 2014; Subhang Chauhan and Others Vs. Smt. Renu Singh, by means of which the appeal preferred by the defendant-respondents has been allowed and the judgment and order dated 17.11.2014 passed in Regular Suit No.491 of 2002; Smt. Renu Singh Vs. Bhagwan Bux Singh and Others has been set-aside and the matter has been remanded to the Trial Court to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made in the judgment of the Appellate Court after affording sufficient opportunity of filing written statement to the defendants and framing the required issues and affording opportunity of evidence to the parties on the same and hearing.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had decided the suit in accordance with law after framing the issues and affording sufficient opportunity to the parties. Even then, if the learned Appellate Court was of the view that certain issues have not been framed and decided by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court, instead of remanding the whole case for a fresh trial, could have framed the additional issues and referred to the Trial Court and directed to take the additional evidence and called the same with its findings and decided the appeal after considering the same in accordance with law. Thus the submission is that the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside. He relied on Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan BI (Dead) by L.Rs. and Another; 2016 (119) ALR 485, Sree Panimoola Devi Temple and Others Vs. Bhuvanachandran Pillai and Others; (2015) 12 SCC 698, Jagannathan Vs. Raju Sigamani and Another; (2012) 5 SCC 540, P. Purushottam Reddy and Another Vs. Pratap Steels Ltd.; (2002) 2 SCC 686, Narendra Vs. K. Meena; 2016 (119) ALR 494.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no error or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the Appellate Court because the learned Trial Court had decided the suit committing several irregularities. He further submitted that after exchange of pleadings, the issues are required to be framed and the opportunity afforded to the parties to adduce the evidence on the said issues but in the present case the issues were framed in the judgment and order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Trial Court itself and without affording any opportunity to adduce evidence on the said issues, the suit was dismissed, which could not have been done. Since the issues were not framed after exchange of pleadings, therefore the parties could not know as to what evidence is to be adduced, therefore the judgment, order and decree passed by the Trial Court has been rightly and in accordance with law set aside by the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court remanded the case to decide a fresh as per the observations and directions issued by the First Appellate Court. Thus the submission is that the instant appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds and it is liable to be dismissed.

5. He further submitted that the first appeal under Order-XLIII, Rule-1 (u) is in the nature of appeal under Section 100, therefore it could be decided only on the legal issues. He relied on Narayanan Vs. Kumaran and Others; (2004) 4 SCC 26 and J. Balaji Singh Vs. Diwakar Cole and Others; (2017) 14 SCC 207.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The ap