Judgment · High Court

Mr. 8. K. Rai, Advocate with Ms. Karishma Chettri, Advocate for the Respondent. The question of law although not specifically formulated by the Appellant but on a perusal of the memo of appeal and upon hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, t:he following question is formulated:- ``Whether t:`he impugned judgment of t:he Learned Appellate Court is bad for not having decided on all the issues and as to whet:her decision on only one of the issues while disposing of the Appeal is legal and valid in t:he light of Order IV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,I 1908." I have perused the impugned judgment and at paragraph 11 the Learned Appellate Court has set out the issues which are as follows:- ``(a) Whet:her t:he Plaintiff had /ocus-stand/. to file the present suit:? (b) Whether the `Gumpa' was a juristic persor] which could sue or be sued? (c) Whether.the suit property/'Gumpa' was the ancestral property of defendant or whether it was public property and whether defendant:'s great grandfather was the sole owner of t:he suit property?

(d) Whether the Plaint:iff was entitled to the relief(s) claimed?„ However, at paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment of the Learned Appellate Court, I find that it has disposed of the SGPG-1/Comp.4/High Court / 1000 Nos/13.08.2011 7r:r- I RSA No.02 of 2012 Case No Orders (s) with Signature (s) y on Issue is apparen reading of the paragraph which is reproduced below:- ``14. The only question for determination before this Court is whether t:he suit property/'Gumpa' was the ancestral property of the Respondent/Defendant or whet:her it is public property. " Under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, it has been prescribed that the Court shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. Of course, this position is notwithstanding that the case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. In the present case, it is not the case of the parties that the case has been disposed of on the preliminary issue.

Undeniably an Appeal is a continuation of the suit and, therefore, it was incumbent for the Learned Appellate Court t:o have considered all th? issues and pronounced judgment on each of those. Mr. 8. K. Rai, Learned Advocate, appearing for the Respondent, fairly concedes that, apart from what have been stated in .paragraph 12 which only sets out the subinission made on behalf of the Appellant to the effect t:hat the other issues would be rendered redundant if the decision is given on the issue (b) above, i.e., whether t:he issue Rishum Gumpa was a juristic person capable of holding properties in its name as this would strike t:he root of the suit:, other t:wo essential issues have not been dealt with an, therefore, renders the impugned judgment of the Learned Appellate Court incomplete. In view of t:he fair concession of Mr. 8. K. Rai, Learned Counsel and in view of the position of law set out above, it would be in the interest of justice if the case is remit:ted back to the Learned Appellate Court to decide on all the issues and render ].udgrr`ent on each of them.