JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of remand rendered by Subordinate Judge, Pala in A.S. 8/2003. A.S. 8/2003 had arisen out of the judgment and decree in O.S. 230/96 of the Munsiff Court, Pala. The trial court on a consideration of the entire materials had dismissed the suit for injunction and the counter claim for declaration. The appellate court by a very long judgment set aside that judgment and decree and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. It is against that order of remand the defendants 1 to 3 have come up in appeal.

2. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration.

1. Is not the lower appellate court erred in remanding the matter to the trial court in the absence of essential ingredients to invoke the power of remand in terms of Order 41 Rule 23 & 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

2. Is not the lower appellate court in serious error in omitting to take note of the fact the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5 who have claimed a right of public way have not even pleaded the absolutely essential ingredients, namely the dedication of property by persons with sufficient details?

3. Is not the lower appellate court i