SHYAM LAL Vs. SURINDER PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short point is involved for consideration in this Review petition filed by the two defendants against the judgment dated 21.8.2002 passed by the Division Bench of this Court comprising of Kamlesh Sharma and K.C. Sood, JJ (as they then were) passed in FAO No. 567/2000. The learned Additional District Judge, Solan vide his judgment dated 27.9.2000 which was under challenge in the aforesaid FAO No. 567/2000, by setting aside the judgment of the learned trial Court had framed two additional issues, being issues No. 8A and 8B and remanded the case to the learned trial Court as a whole for retrial. Additional Issues No. 8A and 8B as framed by the learned Additional District Judge read thus:-

(2.) DISSATISFIED with the judgment dated 27.9.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, with respect to the wholesale remand of the matter to the learned trial Judge in the light of the framing of the aforesaid two additional issues, the plaintiffs filed FAO No. 567/2000 which, as noticed at the outset was disposed by the Division Bench on 21.8.2002. The Division Bench did not agree with the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge with respect to the framing of either issue No. 8A or Issue No. 8B since it found itself of the opinion that there was no need to frame any of these two issues. As far as issue No. 8B is concerned, the Division Bench was of the opinion that it already stood covered by the original issue No.1 which read thus:

(3.) In so far as the framing of additional issue No. 8A is concerned, the ground taken by the Division Bench in discarding and rejecting the view of the learned Additional District Judge about the framing of additional issue No. 8A is concerned, was that the defendant Nand Lal had not pleaded in the written statement that the sale deeds in question were executed by him for legal necessity and for the good management of the property as had been alleged. The Division Bench in the course of the judgment under review observed that Nand Lal, defendant had not pleaded that he had sold the property for legal necessity and for good management. The following observations extracted from the Division Bench judgment under Review are apposite and read thus: