IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL RADESH SHIMLA FAO 399 of 2005 Reserved on: 20.5.2010 Date of decision:25.5.2010 Jatinder Kumar …. Appellant Versus Tarapati & another. …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rameshwar Sharma and Ms Bindiya Sharma for respondent No. 1. V.K. Ahuja, J. This appeal has been filed by appellant/defendant No.1 against the order passed by the Court of learned District Judge (Fast Track Court) Chamba, dated 30.8.2005, vide which he has set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),Chamba dated 22.2.2005. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a suit was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chamba. The case was fixed for framing of issues. On that date, instead of framing any issue arising from the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court passed an order dated 22.5.2005 holding that the present suit is not maintainable and accordingly the plaint was Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 rejected. Brief reference was made to the facts of the case and thereafter impugned order was passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). 3. On appeal, the said order was set aside by the Court of Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Chamba, vide his judgment dated 30.8.2005. The case was remanded back to the trial Court for trial afresh in accordance with law. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The main plea put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 was that there was no necessity for the learned lower appellate Court to remand the case for fresh trial once defendant No.2/respondent No.2 had admitted the claim of plaintiff/respondent No.1 and accordingly the suit ought to have been decreed against the defendant No.2 only. 6. On a perusal of the facts of the case, it is very much clear that the vehicle in question was in possession of respondent No.1 i.e. Jatinder Kumar, the present appellant who was enjoying the earning of the said vehicle. The suit had been filed by plaintiff Tarapati for recovery of the amount in question. After purchase, defendant No. 2 agreed to sell the said vehicle to defendant No.1 without the knowledge of the plaintiff and possession was also delivered to defendant No.1. All these questions have been raised by the plaintiff in the pleadings before the learned trial Court who was required to frame issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and then should have given its finding on all the issues so framed. However, the learned trial Court 3 adopted a short cut method and observed that the suit is not maintainable and the plaint was rejected. Before rejecting the plaint, the learned trial Court had not gone into the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil of Civil Procedure as to on what grounds the plaint could be rejected and at what stage. There is nothing on record that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and it should have been rejected at the initial stage but once the parties had filed pleadings, the issues were required to be framed accordingly and the findings were required to be given by the learned trial on each issue. The order passed by the learned first appellate Court remanding the case to the trial Court is sustainable in the eyes of law and no interference is called for by this Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant which is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. May 25 , 2010 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (SDS) Judge