- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. The above noted three petitions arise out of three suits, which were consolidated and are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court dated 13-4-2000. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of this common judgment.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to above noted petition, in brief are that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed three suits No. 36 of 1985, 39 of 1984 and 785 of 1985 for ejectment of the petitioners from the shops in dispute Nos. 9, 10 and 11 situated in house No. 12/120-A, Nawabganj, Agra and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages on the ground of default. THE said suits were con solidated and in the same following seven common issues were framed : In support of their cases parties produced evidence, oral and documentary. The trial Court took up all the seven issues together and dealt with them and con sidered the entire evidence, oral and documentary, and came to the conclusion that the said suits were liable to be dis missed. The trial Court dismissed the said suits by a common judgment and decrees dated 4-9-1998. Challenging the validity of the said judgment and decrees three revisions were filed before the Court below by the contesting respon dents/landlords, before the Revisional Court. It was urged that the trial Court has acted, illegally in clubbing all the issues together, dealt with the entire evidence, mixed all questions of fact and law and has acted illegally in not deciding the said is sues separately. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, therefore, were liable to be dismissed. The Revisional Court agreeing wan the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, set aside the judgment and decrees passed by the trial Court and remanded the suits of the trial Court for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the judg ment within a period of two months from the date of judgment, hence the above noted writ petitions. Learned counsel for-the petitioner vehemently urged that deciding all issues together can, at the best, amount to an irregularity, therefore, Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and to remand the case for decision afresh. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below was liable to be quashed.
(3.) 1 have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material on record carefully. It is not disputed that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties as many as seven issues were framed by the trial Court, which have been noted above. The controversies involved in each one of the said issues was different from each other. The parties have produced evidence oral and documentary, on each issue. The said issues, therefore, had to be decided separately after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties on those issues to avoid confusion. The Rule 5 of Order XX, CPC provides as under: "5. Court to state its decision on each issue.- In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the findings upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit. " It is well-settled in law that there should be finding on each issue separately and not all issues together. Only exception was if finding upon any one or more of the issues was sufficient for decision of the suit, then it is not necessary to decide all issues as is evident from the above noted rule. The trail Court, thus acted illegally with material irregularity in dealing with the entire evidence of the parties together and without recording finding on each issue separately in accordance with law in dismissing the suits wholly arbitrarily. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner failed to show that the inaction on the part of the trial Court in not record ing findings on each issue separately mere ly amounted to irregularity and not il legality. In my opinion, the trial Court has acted illegally with material irregularity, as stated above in not deciding the issues in accordance with law. According to my reading, in the judgment of the trial Court, clear and categorical finding have not been recorded on all the issues, therefore, the Court below committed no mistake in set ting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanding the case for decision afresh in the light of the obser vations made in the judgment within the time specified by it. By order of remand, the cases of the petitioners are not going to be prejudiced in any manner. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India is made out.;