1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Mukesh Chand Vs. Abdul Haneef & Ors. (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1643/2010) S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Order 43 rule 1(u) CPC. Date of Judgment: August 27, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Dinesh Kumar Garg, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.02.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Dholpur, whereby the learned Judge has, after framing an additional issue, set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009 and has remanded the case back to the trial court. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dholpur, had decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondents. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellant before the trial court. The appellant filed his written statement to the suit. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned trial court had framed six issues. The 2 respondent, Abdul Haneef, examined himself and two other witnesses and exhibited only one document. Similarly, the appellant examined himself and one another witness and exhibited the documents from Exhibit A/1 to Exhibit A/86. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009 the learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Judge. However, vide judgment dated 26.02.2010 the learned Judge, while framing an issue, quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009 and remanded the case back, in toto, to the trial court. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has erred in remanding the case back to the learned trial court. In fact, the learned Judge should have accepted the appeal, and should have dismissed the suit filed by the respondents. According to the learned counsel, two objections were raised before the learned Judge, namely that the rent-deed was never exhibited. Therefore, the appellant was justified in raising their objections when certain questions were asked with regard to the rent-deed. Although the learned trial court had observed that 3 it will deal with the objections at the time of the final hearing, but it had failed to do so. Secondly, despite the fact that the appellant had denied the relationship of the landlord and the tenant, qua Abdul Haneef (respondent No.1 before this Court), no issue was framed with regard to the said controversy. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has framed the issued with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, the learned Judge should have remanded the case only on that particular issue. However, the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the judgment and has remanded the case back in toto. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. This appeal is highly misplaced. For, both the contentions, mentioned above, were duly accepted by the learned Judge. Since the trial court had observed that it will deal with the objections raised by the appellant at the time of the final hearing, and since it failed to do so, the learned Judge had no other option, but to remand the case back to the trial court. Moreover, since there was a denial with regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and Abdul Haneef, the 4 respondent No.1, the learned Judge has certainly justified in framing the issue with regard to the said relationship and in remanding the case to be decided by the trial court after taking due evidence on the said issue. Therefore, this Court fails to understand as to how the appellant is aggrieved by the acceptance of his appeal by the learned Judge. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has given cogent reasons for remanding the case back and for setting aside the judgment and decreed dated 29.10.2009 passed by the trial court. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. This appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki