JUDGMENT

Abdul Raoof, J. - Shah Muhammad respondent obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against Mt. Umri, the appellant before us. The decree was put into execution and Alt. Umri objected that as she had embraced Christianity the marriage tie had been put an end to. The executing Court dealt with the matter somewhat summarily and disallowed the application for execution. Thereupon the decree-holder preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court. The learned Judge of the Court below considering the judgment of the first Court to be wholly inadequate, made an order of remand under order 41, Rule 23. Against that order the present appeal was preferred. At the hearing a preliminary objection was taken that no appeal from the order of remand in this case was competent. The question was referred to a Full Bench. It has now been finally decided that an appeal does lie from the order of remand in such cases. The appeal has now come up for decision before us on the merits.

2. Dr. Nand Lal, counsel for the appellant Mussammat Umri, has contended that the present order was not justified by the terms of Rule 23 of order 41 inasmuch as the judgment of the first Court had not been set aside on any preliminary point by the Court below. It has been held more than once that an appellate Court is not confined to the grounds mentioned in Rule 23 and that if for the ends of justice it is necessary to remand a case for a fresh trial it may do so on any other good ground. In the case of Ghuznavi v. Allahabad Bank, Ltd. [1917] 44 Cal. 929, a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court laid down the Rule that the power of remand under St. 107, Civil Procedure Code is limited to the case described in order 41, Rule 23, but nothing in that section restricts in any manner the application of the principle of inherent power recognised by Section 151 of the Code.

3. Dr. Nand Lal has cited a number of rulings given under the old Code and some pronounced since the coming into operation of the new Code, but it will serve no useful purpose to discuss all those authorities here. No one can deny the fact that so far as Rule 23 of order 41 is concerned a remand may be made on the grounds set forth therein but Rule 23 is not exhaustive. Various circumstances may arise under which an appellate Court may not he able to decide completely a case and it may think it necessary to order a remand in the interests of justice. In this case the learned Judge of the Court below has given satisfactory reasons for making the order of remand.

4. Dr. Nand Lal has also cited some authorities on the question whether the alleged apostacy in this case had taken place or not. We do not think it is necessary to deal with this question at this stage. The whole question will be gone into by the Court of first instance to which the case is remanded under order 41, Rule 23.

5. We see no force in this appeal and we aocordingly dismiss it with costs.