SUSHIL GOEL Vs. N.K. GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has instituted the present appeal against the judgment dated 4.3.2013 passed by the learned ADJ in a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,00,300/- along with interest instituted against the respondent/defendant. After pleadings were completed, four issues were framed on 7.2.2006, including an issue with regard to the suit being barred by limitation in respect whereof, onus had been placed on the appellant/plaintiff. Thereafter, evidence was adduced by the parties and finally, arguments were addressed. While passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court decided issue No. 1 against the appellant/plaintiff and held that the suit instituted by him was barred by limitation. Thereafter, the trial Court observed that it need not detain itself with regard to the remaining issue Nos. 2 and 3, namely, whether the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount claimed by him from the respondent/defendant and if so, whether, he is entitled to interest from the respondent/defendant and for what period, on the ground that issue No. 1 had been decided against the plaintiff. As a result, the suit was dismissed as being barred by limitation without any finding being returned on the remaining issues. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the appellant/plaintiff has instituted the present appeal.

(2.) On 19.8.2013 when the appeal was listed for admission, it was noted that Order 14 Rule 2, CPC requires the Court to pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue and in the present case, the trial Court had not pronounced the judgment on all issues on the ground that the suit instituted by the appellant/plaintiff was barred by time, which could result in insurmountable delay. For taking such a view, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Gustavo Ranato da Cruz Pinto, 1985 AIR(SC) 736, wherein it was held that where several contentions, factual and legal are urged and when there is a scope for appeal, it is desirable that to avoid delay and protraction of litigation, the Court should dispose of all the points and not merely rest its decision on one single point. On 19.8.2013 itself, notice was issued to the respondent returnable for today.

(3.) Today, Counsel for the respondent/defendant enters appearance and states that he has no objection to the suit being remanded back to the trial Court for adjudication on all the remaining issues as framed on 7.2.2006, i.e., issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Counsel for the appellant is also agreeable to the said suggestion.