(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THE sole ground which impresses us is that the appellant did not have the advantage of pressing forth oral arguments through counsel before the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, hearing the appeal. The District Judge proceeded to decide the case on the basis of written arguments submitted by the parties. Oral arguments could not be advanced because there was a strike of the members of the bar who abstained from appearing in the court. It is perhaps for this reason that the District Judge thought that it was expedient to decide the case on the basis of written arguments. But in our view the issue involved in this case was such that the efficacy of oral arguments could not be underestimated.

(3) HAVING regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case we think it proper that the view of the Additional District Judge should be reobtained before his decision of fact becomes binding in second appeal before the High Court. For this reason we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High court as also that of the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar and remit the case back to the Additional District Judge for r