AND

DECREE

DATED

17.11.2004 PASSED IN O.S.NO.105/1985 ON THE FILE OF THE

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA

AND REMANDING BACK THE MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT

FOR DIRECTION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Heard the appellants counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the respondents.

2. The factual matrix of the case before the trial Court is

that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of possession

contending that defendant is a tenant on monthly rent of

Rs.50/- and defendant also claimed the adverse possession in

the said suit. The trial Court framed the issues with regard to

whether the plaintiff proves that he had title over the A

- 3 -

schedule property and B schedule property and defendant

proves that he was in possession of A schedule property and he

constructed the plaint B schedule house and he perfected the

title over the suit schedule property and whether the suit is

barred by time and ultimately the trial Court has decreed the

suit and the same is challenged before the appellate Court. The

appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in he

appeal, formulated the points with regard to, whether the

plaintiffs were able to establish before the trial Court that

defendant was put in possession of B schedule property based

on oral lease and also whether there is valid termination and

whether the trial Court has framed material issues and first

appellate Court comes to the conclusion that these two points

does not survive for consideration and comes to the conclusion

that issues framed by the trial Court is not proper issues in

view of the pleadings between the parties and committed an

error and hence allowed the appeal by setting aside the order

of the trial Court and remanded the same with a direction to re-

admit the same and frame additional issues as suggested by

the Court in the body of the judgment in paragraph No.18 and

afford opportunity to both the parties in confining to additional

- 4 -

issues only and disposal of the matter afresh as early as

possible. The said order has been challenged before this Court.

3. The counsel appearing for the appellants would

vehemently contend that no need to remand the matter and

already material available before the Court and the appellate

Court ought to have considered the same and the very object

of framing the issues is, parties to know the lis between them

and an opportunity has to be given to both of them to

substantiate their contention. When the proper issues are not

framed, considering the pleadings of the parties, the first

appellate Court rightly remanded the matter to consider the

matter afresh in view of additional issues to be framed as

already framed by the first appellate Court which is mentioned

in paragraph No.18. When such being the case, I do not find

any error committed by the first appellate Court in remanding

the matter.

4. However, the first appellate Court failed to direct the

trial Court for time bound disposal, since suit was filed in the

year 1984 and the same is re-numbered as suit No.105/1985

and suit was also disposed of on 17.4.2004, almost two

- 5 -

decades have been elapsed and appeal also filed in the year

2005 and the same is re-numbered as RA No.41/2008 and the

same was also pending before the appellate Court for a period

of 17 years and almost 17 years parties are before the Court.

5. It is unfortunate that when the plaintiff approached the

Court seeking the relief, for a period of 37 years, he could not

get the relief and hence, it is appropriate to direct the trial

Court to dispose of the same within a period of three months.

6. The parties are directed to appear before the trial

Court on the date already fixed by the trial Court and from that

date matter has to be disposed of within a period of three

months and parties not to seek any unnecessary adjournments

and assist the trial Court in disposal of the same within a

stipulated pe