AKKANGAMMA Vs. R NAGESWARIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original suit out of the proceedings in which these two civil revision petitions arise is No. 893 of 1959 on the file of the Munsiff at Nanjangud. The suit was for recovery of possession, with mense profits and other incidental reliefs, of two items of immoveable properties. The Munsif framed eight issues, took evidence and made a decree in favour of the plaintiff only in respect of one half of the first item and dismissed the suit as to the rest of the claim. Both sides being dissatisfied with the decision appealed to the Civil Judge at Mysore; Regular Appeal No. 152/61 is by the plaintiff and Regular Appeal No. 155/61 that of the defendant. One of the grounds raised by the plaintiff-appellant was that the Munsif has failed to raise the necessary issues, in the suit. An interlocutory application also appears to have been made for amendment of the plaint. The Civil Judge took up the interlocutory application for consideration and allowed the prayer therein for amendment. He also framed an additional issue as regard to by both the parties. His order on the appeal is said to be an order directing the trial court to take evidence and record findings on the additional issues and return the same tot he appellate court. The findings were returned by the Munsiff by the end of 1963.

(2.) By that time, another officer was presiding as Civil Judge at the court in Mysore. He has passed a common order in both the appeals against which these two civil revision petitions are presented by the defendants. It appears from the judgment that only 2 points taken up for consideration were; (1) Whether proper and necessary issues have not been framed by the trial Court? and (2) if so, whether the suit should be remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal. His conclusion was that the entire issues should be recast. He framed seventeen fresh issues and took the view that the entire suit should be remanded for fresh disposal on the basis of the said fresh issues. He also directed the trial court to give fresh opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence on the issues framed and to dispose of the suits afresh according to law.

(3.) The petitioners complain that this was not a proper disposal of the appeals at all and that the considerations adverted to by the Civil Judge in his judgment do not furnish sufficient ground for a remand of the suit. It is pointed out that on the former occasion the parties themselves consented to and were satisfied by the framing of one additional issue and that pursuant to the remand made on the first occasion some additional evidence had also been brought on record.