IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RSA.No.329 of 2007. Date of Decision :28th April,2008. Sandeep Chauhan. …Appellant. Versus: H.P.Khadi and village Industries and another. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr.Bhupinder Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate. . For Respondent-1. Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For Rrespondent-2. Mr.Narender Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The parties were heard on the only following substantial question of law: “Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below are sustainable for non compliance of the provisions of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.?.” Sh. Sandeep Chauhan-plaintiff (appellant herein) filed a Civil Suit No.20/1 of 1999 before the Civil Judge, Solan seeking a declaration that he is entitled to subsidize rate of interest on the financed amount On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 1.Whether plaintiff is entitled to subsidise rate of interest on the loan amount as prayed?. …OPP. 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form?. …OPD. 3. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?. …OPF. 4. Whether suit is barred by limitation? …OPD. 5. Relief. Vide judgment and decree dated 30th August, 2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Solan, H.P., the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff’s suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and thus not maintainable in the present form. However, issues Nos. 1 and 4 on merits were left undecided in spite of the fact that evidence was led. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal and also filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint and impleadment of the necessary parties. Vide judgment and decree dated 25th April, 2007, Civil Appeal No.70-S/13 of 2006 titled as Sandeep Chauhan Vs. H.P.Khadi and another was also dismissed upholding the finding returned by the court below. However, even the first appellate Court did not decide in spite of having noticed the fact that the trial Court had not returned any finding on all the issues. In Prithvi Raj Jhingta and another Vs. Gopal Singh and another, 2006 (2) Shim. L.C. 441, the Court has held that where all the issues have been framed together and also taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, they must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit. While arriving at its conclusion, the court in extenso examined the provisions of 3 Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. and also the recommendation of the Law Commission and the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. From the perusal of the impugned judgments it is evident that issues No.1 and 4 have not been decided by either of the courts below. It is clear that the courts below have erred in not pronouncing the judgment on all the issues. It is, therefore, quite evident that the courts below have seriously erred in not complying with the mandatory provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. by not pronouncing the judgment on all the issues. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and decree dated 25th April, 2007 passed by the District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 70-S/13 of 2006 and judgment and decree dated 30th August, 2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Solan in Civil Suit No. 20/1 of 1999 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for adjudication on all the issues. The Civil Suit is restored to its original position. A copy of the order and the record be sent back to the trial Court. The parties shall appear before the concerned Court on 30th May, 2008. The matter being old, it is expected of the court below to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The question of law is answered accordingly. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 28th , 2008.(R) 4