RADHA KANT KUER Vs. BISHWANATH KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the 4th Additional District Judge, Motihari in the district of East Champaran, passed in Title Appeal No. 90/161 of 1992 / 2004. By virtue of this Order, dated 15.12.2004, appeal filed on behalf of respondents against the ex-parte; Judgment, dated 12.01.1988, passed by Shri C. D. Jha "Vikal", Sub-Judge-5, Motihari in Title Suit No. 465/84 of 1986 / 87 was set aside and the matter remanded back, giving opportunity to the defendant to file his written statement and contest the suit. Appeal came to be filed, challenging the said decision and many a submissions have been made in the memo of appeal to show that such an order is required to be interfered with and the order of remand ought not to have been passed by the Appellate Court, because it gives not only an undue advantage to the defendant, but also a premium for his inaction, before the trial court in defending the suit promptly.

(2.) Suit was originally filed by the plaintiff-appellants before the Court of Sub-Judge, Motihari, which was registered as Title Suit No. 465 of 1986. The relief prayed for in the plaint was for declaration that they have acquired title of the suit land, described in schedule-I of the plaint on the basis of four registered sale-deeds, executed by the defendant on 22.12.1983, as also for confirmation of possession and restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit land. In the alternative, even a prayer for recovery of possession was made.

(3.) The Court is not required to take note of the details of the averments made in the plaint behind the filing of the said Title Suit, but it seems that after registration of the said suit, certain steps had been taken by the trial court. But there is nothing to reflect that anything tangible in terms of trial of the suit, as such had been taken. No doubt the respondents / the defendants did file power on 25.04.1987 in the matter, but soon thereafter on 19.08.1987, the records of the case stood transferred to Sub-Judge-5, Motihari for disposal, on the orders of the learned District Judge. It is the stand of the appellants that thereafter the defendant took no steps and no option was left for the Sub-Judge-5, but to proceed ex-parte and decree the suit.