The court's failure to deal with the issues framed in the case and make a record of the inspection of the disputed area renders the order passed without jurisdiction.

Heard Mr. EY Renthungo, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. R. Iralu, learned counsel for the respondents. A very unprecedented situation has arisen in this case. As such I am not hearing the case on merit as I cannot do so. I may give my reasons as follows:

The matter concerns dispute of a plot of land located near the Town of Wokha in the district of Wokha. The dispute concerning this plot of land was first decided by DBs Court. Being aggrieved this appellant preferred an appeal before the learned ADC (Judicial). The learned ADC (Judicial) was pleased to set aside the decision of DBs Court dated 2.6.88 and a denovo trial was ordered by this order dated 17.12.88. Subsequently four issues were framed. They are :

(1) Whether the appellant is the absolute owner of the suit land in question?

(2) Whether the land in question is an ancestral property of the appellant/defendant family ?

(3) Whether the respondent purchased the said field in question from late Nyamo Murry of Wokha village in 1946 ?

(4) Whether the respondent has been in possession of the said field since then and whether the respondent been cultivating the said field till 1987 ?

2. Both the parties adduced evidence. The appellant examined three witnesses including himself. The respondent examined as many as nine witnesses including himself. After hearing the parties the learned ADC (Judicial) passed the impugned order on 30th August, 1993 in Appeal No.30 of 1988. We have gone through the impugned order. In the entire impugned order not one of the four issues has been dealt with. Order 14 Rule 2 (1) of CPC states:

"Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) pronounce judgment on all issues.

(2) Where issues both of law and of fact .arise in the same suit and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that parties may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on mat issue."

In Rule 25 (2) of the Rules for Administration of Justice, it is stated "in the judgment so pronounced, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor on all issues framed, unless the findings upon one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit or action". It is, therefore, incumbent on the part of the Court to deal with all the issues and give finding with reference to each issue. There can be no departure as far as this procedure is concerned inasmuch as such procedure has been laid down to aid the Court in the smooth and administration of justice. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore submits that on this score alone the impugned order should be set aside.

3. The parties to the suit in the Court below were defended by members of the Bar. Not even a mention is made as to whether lawyers appeared before the Court at all. The learned Court was pleased not even to note the presence of lawyers who defended the parties. The learned ADC (Judicial) also visited the disputed area with some persons who are acquainted with the boundary and the dispute area. Although such visit/inspection is reflected in the impugned order, no memo of his visit is available in the judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant states that in fact the learned Court had only solicited some informations from some persons whom the Court had summoned, and that the appellant was not even allowed to be present when those witnesses were examined by the learned ADC (Judicial). Let me not express any opinion regarding the truth of this statement made at the Bar. However, it appears at the spot verification both the parties were not prese