( 1 ) ADMIT. Mr. R. N. Shah appears for opponents and waives service of admission. Printing is dispensed with. With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties matter is finally heard and disposed of by this judgment.

( 2 ) THIS Second Appeal is preferred by original defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Asst. Judge, Navsari, dated 30-9-1995 in reg. Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1986 whereby he allowed the appeal of the appellantdefendants and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in favour of respondent-plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the trial Court with direction to raise proper and legal issues after considering the pleadings and submissions of the rival parties. The learned Asst. Judge also directed the trial Court judge to afford sufficient opportunity to lead oral as well as documentary evidence to the parties of the suit in support of their allegations and also directed that the parties were at liberty to lead fresh evidence on the issues. He also directed that the learned trial Judge shall decide the suit on merits after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties at the earliest.

( 3 ) SURPRISINGLY, the successful parties, i. e. , appellant-defendants have approached this Court despite their success in appeal as consecutively in this third matter decided by the very Asst. Judge, namely, Viral Y. Desai at Navsari. It is pointed out to this Court that he has found a novel way of disposing of the regular civil appeal by making absolutely sweeping and nebulous statements in his judgment as regards framing of issues, and as regards certain issues which in his opinion ought to have been framed and were not framed and ultimately by quashing and setting aside the entire judgment of the trial Court he is in the habit of remanding the suit to the trial Court for its retrial afresh after framing issues afresh, after recording oral as well as documentary evidence afresh and to decide the suit after providing sufficient opportunity to the parties.

( 4 ) IN the earlier two Second Appeals being Second Appeal Nos. 171 and 172 of 1995 the very device was adopted by the very Judge and successful as well as unsuccessful party has to approach this very Court despite order of remand passed by the learned Asst. Judge. While deciding the said two appeals on 2-12-1995 this court has deprecated and condemned the novel method found out by the learned asst. Judge of disposing of regular civil appeals which were arising from the suits instituted as back as 10/12 years. While deciding such regular civil appeals he adopted the aforesaid device or modus operandi which would give him disposal of regular civil appeals and would render the litigating parties to fresh round of litigation starting from framing of fresh issues, thereby forgetting that he was adding to and prolonging the miseries of litigants by further procrastinating the litigation for no legal, just and proper reasons in his uncalled for and unwarranted zeal to dispose of appeals without doing justice to the parties and in so doing he forgot that he was not dispensing justice but he was dispensing with justice. This Court is very much grieved, moved and touched by the unfortunate approach adopted by the learned Asst. Judge that it cannot help observing that the learned Asst. Judge has rendered the right of Regular Civil Appeal under Sec. 96 of C. P. Code to a mere mockery of justice and/or confirmed the growing impression in the litigating public that real justice is merely a mirage, teasing illusion or promise of unreality in a country which proclaims to be the largest democracy and the one that wishes to ensure securing justice should not be denied to any citizen.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the parties having taken the Court through the judgment and decree of the learned Asst. Judge, submitted that it is not necessary to refer to, in detail, to the factual controversy in thi