An appellate court must address all issues raised by the trial court to exercise its jurisdiction properly; failure to do so renders its judgment unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants against judgment and decree dated 07.06.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge, (1), Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 111/2012, whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2012, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Court No. 4, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 102/2011/09 has been set aside.

2. Parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they held before learned trial Court. Respondent herein is the plaintiff, who had filed a suit against defendants (appellant herein) seeking following reliefs:-

i. That the invasion over the suit land by the defendants be declared as illegal.

ii. That the defendants be restrained from interfering with the enjoyment of peaceful ownership and possession the plaintiff be granting perpetual injunction.

iii. That the defendants be restrained from their illegal invasion over the suit land by granting mandatory inunction in favour of the plaintiff.

iv That the defendants be directed not to put up any structure or dig the soil over the suit and of plaintiff.

3. The defendants contested the suit by raising preliminary objections as to maintainability of suit, estoppel, want of notice under Section 80 CPC, want of cause of action and non-joinder & misjoinder of parties. On merits, defendants alleged that the road namely Grodu More-Chahari-Chir-Badanu was being constructed for public benefit. The allegation of the plaintiff that some part of the land owned by her was also being utilized by defendants for construction of road, was not denied. However, it was submitted that the defendants were doing so with the consent of Mr. Nokhu Ram, who was one of the co-owners of the land.

4. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction, as prayed for ?OPP

3. Whether the suit for the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct, as alleged? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD

6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit, as alleged? OPD

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD.

8. Relief.

5. Issues No. 1, 2, 4 and 7 were decided in affirmative and rest of the issues were decided in negative. The suit of the plaintiff was, accordingly, dismissed.

6. Noticeably, the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff was one of the co-owners of the suit land and defendants had raised the construction of road from suit land without the consent of the plaintiff. The right of plaintiff to seek declaration and permanent prohibitory and also the mandatory inunction was upheld. However, the suit was dismissed on the basis of findings on issues No. 4 and 7, whereby, learned Trial Court had held the suit to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was held that since all the co-owners were not impleaded as parties in the suit, the decree could not be passed in favour of the plaintiff.

7. Admittedly, the defendants accepted the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court and did not assail the same. Plaintiff, however, challenged the decree in appeal by availing remedy under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal has been decided by learned Additional District Judge, (1), Mandi, H.P., vide impugned judgment and decree. The judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court has been set aside and decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land by way of raising any construction of road thereon except in due course of law has been passed.

8. Aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court, the defendants now are in regular second appeal before this Co