IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO No.299 of 2004. Date of decision : 02.12.2008 Smt.Simro Devi …Appellant Versus Pola and Others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 4: Mr.R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr.N.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This is the plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Solan, remanding the case to the learned trial Court for trial afresh. The facts need not be considered in detail as, the learned District Judge has set aside the judgment appealed against only on the ground that the order dated 19.6.2002 passed by the learned trial Court disallowing the application for amendment of the written statement was liable to be set aside. The learned appellate Court holds that such amendment was necessary for the determination of the true controversy between the parties. The Court also holds that allowing of the amendment would necessarily entail framing of additional issue(s) on which the parties would be entitled to lead evidence. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 A whole sale remand of the case has been deprecated by the Supreme Court as also by this Court in a number of judgments. (See: Bechan Pandey and Others vs. Dulhin Janki Devi and Others, (1976) 2 SCC 286, K.Krishna Reddy and Others vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, LMD Karim Nagar, Andhra Pradesh, (1988) 4 SCC 163, Ashwin Kumar K.Patel vs. Upendra J.Patel and Others,, (1999)3 SCC 161 and P.Purushottam Reddy and Another vs. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002)2 SCC 686). Converting disputes between parties into interminable proceedings is not the purpose or intent of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the amendment was necessary and had been allowed, the learned appellate Court should have either framed the issues itself or called upon the trial Court to frame such issues and then call for findings from it on the additional issues. Whole sale remand is not the answer. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court to the extent it remands the case for trial afresh is quashed and set aside, however, the order allowing the amendment is sustained, and the following directions are issued:- (a) The learned District Judge shall re-admit the appeal; (b) He shall consider as to whether the additional issues on the amended pleadings are to be framed by the appellate Court or by the trial Court; (c) In either eventuality, the plaintiff shall be given an opportunity to rebut the pleadings on the amendment so made by the defendant; (d) Evidence of both the parties shall be recorded on the additional issues either by the appellate Court if it tries such issues itself or by the trial Court. Findings on such issues, if tried by the learned trial Court, shall be sent to the learned appellate Court; 3 (e) The appeal shall be decided afresh by the learned appellate Court after granting opportunity to the parties to challenge the findings on the newly framed issues. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Solan, on 15th December, 2008. Records be sent back immediately. The learned Court shall make endeavour to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. The appeal is disposed of in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs. December 2, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.