The suit with which we are concerned was one for possession and mesne profits. The trial was a lengthy one. 18 witnesses were examined and a very large number of documents filed. The District Munsiff who pronounced the judgment was not the Munsiff who recorded the evidence; and after hearing the arguments he wrote a very long judgment extending to more than 11½ pages. Although 9 issues were framed, the learned District Munsiff did not discuss separately under the heading of the individual issues the evidence bearing on each issue. His long judgment discusses from paragraph 14 the various questions that arose in the suit and at the very end he recorded his findings on the several issues without giving any summary of the evidence relating to the various issues. In view of these defects in the judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal did not discuss the evidence at all and in a few brief paragraphs disposed of the appeal by saying that the District Munsiff did not give any reasons for arriving at his conclusions. He considered that the judgment contravened the provisions of Order 20, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code and remanded the suit for fresh disposal.

The typ