IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA 244 of 1998. Date of decision March 17, 2009. Rama Nand ….Appellant. Versus Lekh Ram ….Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent(s) Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This is the defendant’s appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent in the following terms: “20. As a sequel to my findings on point No. 1 above, the appeal succeeds and the same is hereby accepted. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction, changing the nature of land bearing khasra No. 1725 and 1726, measuring 2-5 bighas and also from making any additions and alterations in the ancestral house and cow-shed till partition, is decreed. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly and the record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of the judgment and the record of the appeal be consigned to record room.” It is not disputed before me that the learned trial Court has passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff partly decreeing the suit. While passing the decree, the Court has ordered: “13. Relief: In view of my discussion and findings on issue No. 1 and 2 above, suit of the plaintiff partly succeeds and is therefore, decreed with costs. Defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent perpetual prohibitory injunction from raising any construction, changing nature of the suit land comprised in khata khatauni No. 60/113- 114, bearing khasra No. 1726 and 1725, kitas 2 measuring 2-5 bighas situated in village Wakna, Pargna, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, from making any additions and alterations in the ancestral joint house Nos. 1 and 2 as shown in Mark ‘A’. However, the plaintiff’s suit is dismissed qua house No. 3 & 4 as shown Mark ‘A’. Decree sheet be prepared. File after completion be consigned to record room…..” Learned senior counsel for the appellant has taken me through the judgment of learned Additional District Judge. He submits that despite the fact that - 3 - the learned trial Court had refused relief to the plaintiff qua houses 3 and 4 and no grievance was made by the plaintiff in appeal with respect to house No. 3, as depicted in Mark ‘A’, the decree of the learned District Judge grants relief with respect to the entire suit land including all built up properties which include houses 3 and 4. He submits that the claim of house No. 3 not having been made in the grounds of appeal would amount to plea abandonment before the learned lower appellate Court. Learned Senior counsel urges that the judgment of the learned District Judge is not a reasoned and does not in any manner determine the points raised for determination in appeal. I have been taken through the judgment and I find that the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been complied with. While accepting or rejecting a claim put forth by an appellant/ respondent before the trial Court or the appellate Court, it is the bounden and statutory duty of the learned Court to give its findings on a proper appreciation of pleadings/ evidence and the law applicable on the point. I do not find from the judgment of the appellate Court that this exercise has been undertaken. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed; the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge is set aside and the case is remanded to the District Judge, Solan for decision afresh in - 4 - accordance with law. He shall proceed to hear the parties and then determine the controversy in appeal. I was reluctant to follow this course of action, as the appeal has been filed in the year 1998, but I find that I cannot take on myself the mantle of analyzing the entire material on record which is the duty of the learned appellate Court. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Solan on 4.5.2009. A direction is issued to the learned District Judge that he should dispose of this appeal not later than 31.12.2009. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted in the case. Record of the Courts below be returned forthwith. The learned District Judge shall readmit the appeal on the Court record and then proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Costs on parties. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. March 17, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.