SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The learned trial Court framed as many as ten issues and subsequently framed Issue No. 8A. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.2.1997 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the suit for fresh decision by passing the following order : "From the discussion made above, it is evident that the trial Court in the judgment did not discuss the evidence with regard to the aforesaid two issues which has important bearing on the controversy involved and there was no proper trial and the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in the eyes of law and re-trial of the entire case is necessary. Findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 8A and 4 are essential for right decision of the suit on merits. As such, the appeal is accepted and judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside and case is remanded back to the concerned trial Court for fresh decision after allowing the parties to lead evidence if any on issue Nos. 4 and 8A. Since the impugned judgment and decree has been set aside, the cross objection filed by the respondents/cross objectors has become infructuous and the same stood dismissed." The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgements reported as Kartar Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank and others, 1988(2) RRR 334; Sheo Datt v. Mst. Sarbati and others, 1970 PLR 702; Hawa Singh v. Lal Singh, 1998(4) RCR(Civil) 165 (P&H) and Smt. Dhapan v. Vijay Singh and others, 1980 PLR 211, to contend that within the purview and scope of Order 47 Rule 23 of the C.P.C. the first appellate Court could only ask for a report from the learned trial Court and could not have set aside the findings on other issues and more so by recording no reasons whatsoever.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondents could not point out even a single line from the judgment of the first appellate Court where reasons have been given for setting aside the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on other issues. It is obligatory upon the first appellate Court to record reasons for setting aside the findings on other issues. The only ground taken in the judgment is that the trial Court did not record findings on issue Nos. 4 and 8A. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the law enunciated it was necessary for the first appellate Court to ask for a report from the learned trial Court rather than remitting the entire suit for fresh trial. The learned first appellate Court was very cautions in directing the trial Court to record evidence only on issue Nos. 4 and 8A. This itself shows that the order of remand is totally uncalled for. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of the first appellate Court is set aside. The appeal is ordered to be restored to the first appellate Court. The learned trial Court shall submit its report on issue Nos. 4 and 8A to the fist appellate Court within a period of six months from the date on which a copy of the order is brought to its notice. The first appellate Court will then proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.;