RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. Vs. KARTAR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has assailed an order of remand in this appeal.

(2.) The suit of the plaintiff has been pending since 1980. It was adjourned on 16-3-1982 at the instance of the plaintiff and on the next date again the plaintiff applied for adjournment on the ground that his witness had not come on account of illness and because of distance. This application was dismissed on 16-4-1982 on objection by the defendant. The court thereafter proceeded under Order 17, Rule 3 C.P.C. and directed the parties to lead their evidence. No evidence was adduced by the plaintiff. The defendant was present along with his witnesses but from the order it is not clear whether any witness was examined on behalf of the defendant or not. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit in absence of the evidence in support of plaintiffs case.

(3.) The plaintiff filed an appeal. In the appellate court it was not disputed that the court had the right to proceed with the suit under Order 17. Rule 3 C P.C. The Court, however, found that the trial court had not decided the suit on merits and there was no discussion or decision on the various issues that were raised between the parties. The court, therefore, held that the decision was a hasty one and it was not a judgment in the eye of law as it was not based on any reasons or findings. Consequently the appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was set aside. The suit was remanded to the trial court with the direction that it will be registered on its original number and will be decided in accordance with Jaw afresh. A further direction was given that the court will permit the plaintiff to present his case before the court and the defendant will be compensated by costs in accordance with the circumstances of the case.