The trial court's clubbing of issues and rendering common findings was not in violation of the legal provisions. The appellate court's remand order was found to be inappropriate.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal, is, directed against the verdict rendered by the learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, upon, Civil Appeal RBT No. 23-S/13 of 2017/14 on 21.03.2018, where through, he proceeded to after striking, the hereinafter ad verbatim extracted issues No. 1(a) and 7-A, hence make an order of remand, upon, the learned trial Court, (a) upon, his invoking, the, mandate of Order 41, Rule 23-A of the CPC, (b) AND with a peremptory direction, upon, it to render a decision afresh, upon, civil suit No. 14-1 of 2014/1985, (c) given his concluding qua infraction, vis-a-vis, mandate of Order 20, Rule 5 of the CPC, rather standing apparently sparked:-

"Issue No. 1(a):

Whether the value of the property in question was Rs.20 lacs at the time parties enter into an agreement for its sale. If so, what is its effect on the enforcement of the said agreement?.....OPD

Issue No.7-A

Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, i.e. plaintiff NO.2, who has been joined with mala fide intention? OPD.”

2. In the plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree for specific performance of contract/ agreement hence executed on 26.03.1982, and, on the pleadings of the parties, this Court, upon, institution of the apt civil suit initially, before, this Court, had, on 10.03.1986, framed, the hereinafter extracted issues:-

1. Whether the parties entered into an agreement of sale with respect to the suit property according to the terms and conditions given in para 3 of the amended plaint? OPP

2. Whether fraud and pressure was exercised on the defendant and there is no valid agreement between the parties? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiff has been and is willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP

4. Whether the time was the essence of the contract? OPD.

5. Whether the defendant is bound to obtain the permission of the competent authority under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act for transfer of the suit property as also no objection certificate from the Income tax authorities? OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit due to his acts, conduct and acquiescence? OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance? If so, in which form? OPP

8. Relief.

The learned trial Court, after, making a conclusion qua there existing interconnectivity, and, interlink age inter se all the afore formulated issues, thereafter clubbed all the afore issues, and, rendered common findings, upon, each of them, (a) and, for requisite reasons hence rendered disaffirmative findings, upon issue No.1, 3, 5 and 7, (b)and, rendered affirmative findings, upon, issues No.2 and 4. Being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiffs instituted, an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the latter Court hence proceeded to render the impugned verdict.

4. The learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved therefrom defendant, and, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, (i) respectively make vehement espousals before this Court, for, hence, invalidating or validating the impugned verdict, (ii) and, concomitantly also respectively hence espoused qua the appropriate course, for, adoption, by the learned First Appellate Court being one comprised in Order 41, Rule 25 of the CPC, and, one embodied, in, the mandate borne in Order 41, Rule 23-A, CPC hence being merit worthy.

5. Before proceeding to dwell into, and, mete an adjudication, upon, the afore espousals made before this Court, by the learned counsel for the contesting litigants, (a) it is deemed incumbent to render a verdict, vis-a-vis, the necessity at all, of, framing of the afore issue No.7-A. The afore framed issue, appears, to stand formulated, hence under the impugned verdict, by the learned First Appellate Court, upon, its being grossly unmindful, vis-a-vis, an order pronounced by this Court, on 6.5.1992, (b) wherein, a graphic disclosure, is, borne qua in the amended plaint, only, the name of plaintiff Shri Jawahar L