As per case facts, Appellant (Original Plaintiff) sued for partition of ancestral properties, claiming a 1/6th share. Respondents alleged an oral partition in 1980 and disputed the ancestral nature of ... some properties. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit. Appellant appealed. Respondents filed cross-objections, asserting the Trial Court failed to frame a limitation issue. The Appellate Court set aside the decree and remanded the entire suit for fresh adjudication, adding a limitation issue. Appellant appealed this remand order to the High Court. The question arose whether the Appellate Court was justified in ordering a wholesale remand for fresh adjudication on re-framed issues, including limitation, without considering the evidence already led by the parties. Finally, the High Court held the Appellate Court's wholesale remand unsustainable and exceptional. It found the Appellate Court failed to assess the Trial Court's findings or existing evidence and overlooked statutory alternatives under Order XLI Rules 24/25 CPC for deciding the issue itself or ordering a limited remand. Non-framing an issue doesn't vitiate proceedings if parties knew the controversy and led evidence, and no prejudice was shown. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the remand order, and directed the First Appellate Court to re-adjudicate on merits, appreciating existing evidence, and if necessary, frame/determine the limitation issue, but not to order a de novo trial.