ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 12.5.2018 passed by learned 7th Additional District Judge, Vadodara passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2017 whereby the appellate Court has set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 5020 of 2015 (Old Special Civil Suit No. 506/1992) and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for providing an opportunity to the defendant to file written statement and leading the evidence in support of the case, keeping liberty reserved to plaintiff to file further evidence before the trial Court, the original plaintiff has preferred this Appeal from Order.

2. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant before the trial Court. The parties are referred to in this order as per the character assigned to them before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case, as emerged out from the material, are as under:

3.1 The plaintiff has instituted a Suit for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the basis that her husband was admitted in the hospital of the defendant and due to negligence on the part of the medical ofÏcer of the defendant, he died. Thus, the entire Suit is based upon the allegation that due to negligence on the part of Doctor of the defendant hospital, the deceased has died. In the Suit, summons were issued to the defendant and inspite of many adjournments granted to the defendant, written statement was not filed. Thereafter, issues were framed and the plaintiff has filed her afÏdavit in lieu of Chief-examination, which was not contested by the defendant. Ultimately, the trial Court has decreed the Suit on the sole evidence of the plaintiff. The same came to be challenged by the defendant by way of filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2017 before the District Court, Vadodara. The 7th Additional District Judge, Vadodara has allowed the said Appeal and set-aside the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court and directed the trial Court to give an opportunity of filing written statement as well as leading evidence to the defendant and has also granted liberty to the plaintiff to lead further evidence and the time for disposal was also fixed of 6 months.

3.2 Against the impugned order of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has contended that as per the Rojkam of the Suit proceedings, necessary notice was issued on various occasion to the defendant regarding transfer of the Suit to the Court. It is also contended that the defendant has already engaged advocate and as the advocate of the defendant didn’t took part in the proceedings, ultimately the right to file the written statement of the defendant came to be closed. It is also contended that the plaintiff has already filed her afÏdavit in lieu of Chief Examination and copy thereof was kept before the Court, but the learned advocate for the defendant did not cared to cross-examine the plaintiff and ultimately she was not cross-examined. It is also contended that it was negligence on the part of the defendant not to file any written statement and to lead any evidence. That the Court has committed error of law in remanding the matter. According to the plaintiff, the trial Court has rightly decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the same ought not to have been disturbed by the First Appellate Court. It is also contended that the Appellate Court has not assigned any proper reasons for remanding the matter back to the trial Court, since the Suit was pending for long time from 1992 to 2016. It is contended that the entire exercise undertaken by the First Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is prayed by the plaintiff to set-aside the impugned order of the First Appellate Court and to direct the Appellate Court to hear the Appeal on merits.

4. Heard Mr. Shashvata Shukla, learned advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. Dhruv Dave, learned advocate for the respondent. Perused the