CRP 12/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mr H Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr M Talukdar, learned c ounsel for the respondents. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2006 passe d by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No 3, Guwahati, in TA No 51/2002 setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in TS Mo 258/91 and thereby remanding the suit for re-disposal by framing three issues, t he defendant petitioner has filed this revision petition. The plaintiffs instituted TS No 258/91 before the learned trial Court, inter alia, claiming for a decree for declaration of right, title and int erest over the suit land measuring 1 B 1 K 1 covered by KP Patta No 34 of villag e Bagharbori in Mouza Beltola in the district of Kamrup, for recovery of khas po ssession of the suit land and the houses standing thereon by evicting the defend ants and for other reliefs. The basis of the claim of the plaintiffs over the suit land is t hat the suit property is their ancestral property, they have right, title and in terest over it but the defendants have dispossessed them illegally. The defendan ts contested the suit by filing written statements wherein they have claimed tha t they have purchased the suit property by executing a registered sale deed for valuable consideration and they are occupying the same on the basis of such purc hase. The plaintiffs stoutly deny the factum of physical possession by the defen dants. After conclusion of hearing the learned trial Court dismissed the suit wh ich was carried into TA No 51/2002. The learned first appellate Court vide judgm ent and order dated 30.11.2006 allowed the appeal and remanded the same for re-d isposal by framing three new issues. Challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned first appellate Court, the present revision petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the submits that the learned Court in p assing the impugned judgment and order has gone beyond the pleadings of the part ies and thereby committed jurisdictional error in framing three new issues for d ecision in the suit. It is submitted that those three issue, in fact, are not em erged from the pleadings of the parties and accordingly, those are not required to be decided and the matter ought to have been decided on the basis of the mate rials available on records. Mr Talukdar, however, strongly opposed the contention of the pet itioner and submitted that the learned first appellate Court does not commit any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and order and in such a situation this Court should not interfere with the same. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel f or the parties. I have also perused the materials available before me. The suit of the plaintiff is for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit p remises and for recovery of khas possession and for confirmation of possession a nd also for injunction and for other reliefs. The claim of the defendant petitio ners is that they had acquired the right, title and interest over the suit land by purchasing the same vide Ext- Ka. The plaintiff in the plaint specifically pl eaded that the defendants are trespassers and they have no semblance of right, t itle and interest whatsoever to be put into possession over the suit land and ho uses standing thereon by disturbing the rightful and peaceful possession and enj oyment of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The learned first appellate Court o n meticulous consideration of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court whi le deciding the Issue No 4 arrived at a finding that in order to avail the prote ction of section 162 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, the learned trial Court should frame such relevant issues. Accordingly, the learned appellant Cou rt framed three issues, namely (i) Whether the suit land falls in the Tribal bel t? (ii) Whether the suit land was sold during the ban period ? (iii) Whether the sale of the suit land is illegal void ab initio ? After framing these three iss ues remanded the matter back to the learned trial Court to be decided by the lea rned trial Court. The petitioner appears to be not unjustified in making such co ntention that the aforesaid issues do not emerged from the pleadings of the part ies. However, a reading of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learne d trial Court also it is seen that such plea was raised before the learned trial Court. On the other hand, the plaintiff as indicated above, has denied any righ t, title and interest of the defendants to occupy the suit premises. In that vie w of the matter, an Issue regarding such right, title and interest ought to have been there which should have embraced the aforesaid facts. Accordingly, in my c onsidered opinion, there should be a like issue, whether the defendants have acq uired any right, title and interest over the suit premises to dispossess the pla intiff there from ? The aforesaid issue emerges from the pleadings, particularly , from the averments made in the plaint and the defence taken by the parties in the case. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this revision petition is dispos ed of with the direction that the learned trial Court shall hear the parties on the aforesaid issue framed by this Court instead of three issues framed by the l earned appellate Court and dispose of the same. With the aforesaid modification, this revision petition stands d isposed of. Since this an old suit of the year, 1991, the learned trial Court sh all dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.