WPMS 557/2003 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Lalit Samant, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. I.D. Paliwal, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3. The petitioners filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which was decreed, against which, the defendant no. 3 filed an appeal, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to re-decide the matter, especially on issue nos. 8 and 9 in the light of the observations made therein. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed and the remand order was affirmed. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, have preferred the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order of remand. The contention of the petitioners that all the material evidence was available and the lower appellate court could have decided itself under Order 41 Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appears to be attractive in the first blush, but on a closer scrutiny, the Court finds that the order of remand was justified in the facts and circumstances that issue nos. 8 and 9 were required to be adjudicated afresh. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the impugned orders. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 01-09-2010 SP