- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The petitioner filed S. C. C. Suit No. 49 of 1989 in the Court of J. S. C. C. , Allahabad which was decreed on 3- 12-1994 (Annexure-5 to the writ peti tion ). Against this decree the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred S. C. C. Revision No. 5 of 1995 which has been allowed by judg ment dated 12-1-1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and the matter has been sent back for the decision to the J. S. C. C. Al lahabad. Aggrieved by the order of remand, of plaintiff/petitioner preferred this petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India.
(2.) I have heard SriRajesh Tandon,learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. None has appeared from the side of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 inspite of sufficient service by registered post. It has been argued by SriRajesh Tandon,learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Court has wide powers under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and that it could have decided all the points itself and need not to sent back the case to the Court of J. S. C. C. It has also been con tended that the remand of the case will result the delay in disposal of the suit which is for ejectment, that there is no sufficient ground for remanding the case. It has been, therefore, requested that the Revisional Court be directed to decide the revision on merit. I have considered the arguments and perused the judgment of the Courts below. It is apparent that the Revisional Court had not considered any facts. How ever, it has rightly done so. A perusal of the judgment of J. S. C. C. Allahabad (An nexure-5 to the writ petition) shows that no point for determination was framed. It is mandatory to frame the points for deter mination as provided by Rule 4 of Order XX, C. P. C. and the judgment delivered without framing points for determination is not a judgment in the eye of law. There fore, the Revisional Court has directed the trial Court to frame the points for deter mination and thereafter to give decision thereof.
(3.) I do not find any illegality in the order of Revisional Court (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the petition is, there fore, dismissed. However, it may be observed that the suit was filed in the year 1989. There fore, the trial Court is directed to expedite the case and decide the suit in accordance with law at an early date. Petition dismissed .;