S.K.Katriar, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant against an order of remand. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.9.2000, passed by the learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Title Appeal No. 38 of 1989 (Most. Ram Sumari Devi and others vs. Ram Binod Rai and others), whereby he has set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1989, passed in Title Suit No. 35 of 1979 (Bal Govind Raout vs. Ram Binod Rai and another), impugned before him, and has remitted back the matter to the learned trial court for a fresh judgment in accordance with the observations made therein and in accordance with law.

2. The suit was instituted for removal of encroachment allegedly by the defendant (appellant) to the extent of four dhurs. In other words, it is a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of 4 dhurs of land. The defendants entered appearance and contested the matter leading to the aforesaid judgment, whereby the trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed which has been allowed by the impugned judgment, that of the trial court has been set aside, and the suit has been remitted for a fresh judgment, in accordance with the directions.

3. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the defendant (appellant) submits that the impugned order is bad in law. It is impermissible to remand the matter on the grounds mentioned by him. He submits that the matter has been remitted back on the ground that the learned trial court ought to have framed an issue that the registered deed of absolute sale of the year 1978, from Ram Prakash Rai in favour of the defendants (appellants), was valid or not and, secondly, on the ground that the learned trial court has not considered a vital piece of evidence on the question of encroachment, namely, the Pleader Commissioners report and the objection filed by the plaintiffs (respondents).

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents) has supported the impugned judgment.

5. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the defendants (appellants) is right in his submission that the question of validity or otherwise of the aforesaid sale- deed does not arise in view of the pleadings of the parties and the learned court of appeal below seems to have made out a third case on account of misappreciation of the cases of the parties as disclosed in their respective pleadings. The Supreme Court in its judgment reported in A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 890 (Siddu Venkappa Devadiga vs. Smt. Rangu S. Devadiga and others) has observed that it is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties, and that it is the case pleaded which has to be found. The Supreme Court held on facts that the High Court in appeal went wrong in making out an entirely new case of benami transaction which was not pleaded and was not the subject-matter of the trial. The Supreme Court has held in its judgment reported in A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 231 (J. K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Kanpur vs. The Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur) that the role of pleadings is to ascertain the real dispute between the parties, to narrow the area of conflict, and to see just where the two sides differ. It is not open to the Tribunals to fly off at a tangent and, disregarding the pleadings, to reach any conclusion that they think are just and proper.

5.1) In this background, learned counsel for the defendant (appellant) is right in his submission that the parties has approached the court with the limited case whether or not the defendants have encroached the lands of the plaintiffs to the extent of four dhurs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents) has not been able to point out any material from the pleadings of the parties to show that this issue arises in the suit. He has in fact not controverted this submission. Therefore, the