IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 11 of 2007. Date of Decision: 29.12.2009. HPSEB and another ..Appellants. Versus. Avtar Singh ..Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? For the Appellants: Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Pandey, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal was connected with FAO No.12 of 2007 for analogous hearing. Admittedly FAO No.12 of 2007 was dismissed by this Court on 31.5.2007. It appears that this matter was not listed on the said date and thereafter has been listed for the first time today. Once both the appeals were directed to be taken up together it was the duty of the Registry to ensure that both the appeals are listed together. Be that as it may it is not disputed before me that the points involved in both the cases are virtually identical. FAO No.12 of 2007 was disposed of by this Court in the following terms: “After hearing the arguments of Mr.Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and on going through the impugned judgment dated 28th November, 2006 rendered by the learned District Judge, - 2 - Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Appeal No.32-CA/13 of 2006, I feel convinced that the learned lower Appellate Court did not err in any manner in remanding the case to the trial Court in terms of Order 41 Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure after quashing the judgment and decree impugned in the appeal and by framing two additional issues being issues No.7A and 7B. No interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed.” In view of the fact that same points are involved in this appeal, I feel that this appeal has to meet the same fate. Normally this Court does not favour wholesale remand but in this case, the lower appellate Court not only framed additional issues but also set-aside the order of the trial Court dismissing the application of the plaintiff seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Resultantly the plaintiff is entitled to lead evidence on all the issues. Therefore, wholesale remand is called for in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Needless to say that if the plaintiffs lead any evidence then the Board has a right to rebut the same. The appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Stay order dated 11.1.2007 is vacated. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 22nd February, 2010. December 29, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge.