NANDLAL Vs. BHANWARLAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order dated 27th Nov., 2001. It appears from the order dated 27th Nov., 2001 that the appellant-defendant submitted an application under Order 8 Rule 8 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 Civil Procedure Code, which was allowed by the First Appellate Court on 10th Aug., 1999 and defendant-appellant- petitioner submitted written statement. The appellate Court permitted rejoinder from the plaintiff and the appellate Court, thereafter, straightway remanded the matter to the trial Court after framing three issues.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate Court committed serious illegality in not framing the complete issues and has not applied its mind whether any issue is required to amend or delete in the light of the grounds taken by the appellant-petitioner in his appeal. Therefore, if this order dated 27th Nov., 2001 is allowed to stand, it will lead the multiplicity of the proceedings and piecemeal trial by the trial Court because of this order dated 27th Nov., 2001. The trial Court will determine the issues framed in the order dated 27th Nov., 2001 and when this matter will come back to the First Appellate Court, the appellate Court may pass order amending, deleting or framing more issues, which may require evidence of the parties and necessitating the remand of the matter for deciding those issues.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the petitioner has not placed on record that relevant copies of the order-sheets has not disclosed that whether any application for amending issues has been decided by the appellate Court or not, therefore, the revision petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. At the same time learned counsel submits that he is also not aware whether any order of such nature was passed by the First Appellate Court.