RSA 25/1999 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N.SARMA This Second Appeal arises out of a decree of reversal passed by the lear ned District Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No.1/98 reversing the judgment and de cree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaon in Title Suit No. 64/91. Heard Mr B Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr DC Mahanta , learned senior counsel for the respondents. Mr Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant raises the following sub stantial questions of law for decision in this appeal :- 1) Whether the learned appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgm ent and decree passed by the learned Trial Court without disposing of the cross- objection filed by the appellant? 2) Whether the proved facts justify reversal of the judgment and decree pa ssed by the learned Trial Court ? The pleaded facts in broad perspective are not disputed. It is also not disputed that the suit property originally belonged to Derhin Teli through whom both the parties claimed the property. However, the defendant- appellant claime d that he is the only heir to inherit the property left by Dehrin and the plaint iffs are not the heirs entitled to the suit property. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint iffs failed to prove their case as pleaded in the plaint. Learned appellate Cour t, however, reversed the decree to the extent that the plaintiffs are joint own ers of the suit property along with the other co-plaintiffs and the principal de fendant. However, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal by mentioning at para 9 that the defendant-appellant has filed a cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 challenging the findings on issue No. 2 and 3. There is no whisper in the judgment regarding the said cross-objection or regarding its legality or ot herwise. The said cross-objection ought to have been disposed of along with the appeal wherein substantial claim of right has been alleged by the defendant-appe llant. Mr. Mahanta in his usual fairness, which is also born out of records, ha s not disputed the aforesaid fact. In that view of the matter, the case is reman ded back to the learned appellate Court for decision of the aforesaid cross-obje ction filed by the appellant. Since the aforesaid cross-objection has a vital be aring on the merit of the case, I find it extremely difficult to sustain the imp ugned judgment which was passed without deciding the cross-objection. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate C ourt is set aside and the matter is remanded back for re-decision. The learned a ppellate Court shall decide the appeal along with the cross-objection filed by t he defendant and both the appeal as well as the cross-objection shall be dispose d of simultaneously. Registry is directed to transmit the LCRs to the learned Court below for thwith. Both the parties shall appear before the appellate Court on 8.3.2007 to receive further instructions from the Court below.