ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals, by special leave, call in question the legal propriety of the judgment and order dated 1st February, 2016, in R.S.A. No.2046 of 2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, vide which the learned Single Judge after considering various aspects has held thus:-

"At this stage, without embarking upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice anybody's case at the relevant stage, it can be appreciated that the trial Court has adverted only to the findings under issues No.1 and 2 and such findings have been made subject matter of decision of issues No.3 and 4. Issue No.3 could have been framed on the basis of stand taken in the written statement as well as on the basis of pleadings of the counter claim. No specific issue of counter claim was framed though the onus of issue No.3 was fastened upon the defendants. Even, if, it is taken to be an issue framed on counter claim, the findings were required to be returned by the trial Court independently. As mentioned in para No.22 of the judgment of the trial Court, the findings under issue No.3 have been returned on the basis of findings recorded on issue No.1 and 2. No decision has been given on the counter claim in the concluding part of the judgment nor the relief of counter claim was incorporated in the relief clause. Even the defendants did not consider themselves to be aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court giving no decision on counter claim. The lower Appellate Court in para No.27 of the judgment has recorded a fact that in view of findings given by the trial Court on all the issues, particularly on issue No.3, counter claim in favour of defendant No.3 can be presumed to have been allowed. Once there is no finding under issue No.3 by the trial Court, there was no occasion for the lower Appellate Court to give such a finding, which is claimed to be totally misreading of evidence. Since the counter claim has not been adverted to by the trial Court nor the same was incorporated in the relief clause, nor any proper issue was based upon counter claim, therefore, the requirement of Order 8, Rule 6A of CPC has not been complied with.

At this stage, this Court feels that in the absence of decision on counter claim, any finding given on merits may prejudice the case of either party, therefore, it will be just and expedient to call upon the trial Court to advert to the counter claim and give necessary findings after framing proper issue on the counter claim. Since the plea of counter claim may affect findings under other issues as well, therefore, while remanding the case to the trial Court, the findings on other issues are necessary to be reversed. Ordered accordingly. However, trial Court shall decide all the necessary issues afresh without being influenced by anything recorded herein-above. Trial Court would make every endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously by giving short adjournments to the parties."

3. It is submitted by Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the counter claim singularly pertain to ownership and an issue was framed with regard to the ownership and, therefore, the parties were well aware as to what the issue was about. Additionally, it is submitted by Mr. Singh that the High Court has been misdirected by the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate court that the counter claim preferred by the respondent presumed to have been allowed, without appreciating the fact that the pertinent issue was the ownership and evidence was adduced with regard to the same.

4. Mr. V.K. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, in support of the judgment passed by the High Court would submit that the High Court has correctly remanded the matter and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

5. On a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, it is perceivable that the issue No.3 pertaine