Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of SAO Nos. 29 to 31 of 2006, as they involve common questions of law and fact.
(2.) The respondents herein filed three suits for possession of suit land, described in detail in the plaint, alleging that they were owners having succeeded to the estate of Amar Singh etc. The appellants-opposed the suit by asserting that they had purchased the suit land from Nasib Singh, general power of attorney of respondent No. 1 The learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court for a fresh adjudication on the ground that the trial Court has failed to frame relevant issues, relating to the execution of the general power of attorney and the sale deeds.
(3.) Counsel for the appellants submits that even if the trial Court has failed to frame material issues, the first appellate Court instead of setting aside the trial Court's judgement in its entirety, should have after framing additional issues called upon the trial Court to submit a report under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is submitted that by setting aside the trial Court's entire judgement, the first appellate Court has ordered a denovo trial without setting aside the findings recorded by the trial Court on other issues.;