- (1.) BANNA and others have filed a suit under section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against Nathu Singh and others for ejectment and possession. The trial court dismissed the suit on 14. 11. 59. The aggrieved party filed an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur who without discussing the oral evidence on the record in his judgment dated 27. 3. 61 remanded the case for fresh decision. Against the order of remand the defendants have come up in this appeal.
(2.) WE have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant defendant that the appellate court has not given any reason to disbelieve the oral evidence adduced by them. The trial court had discussed the case issue wise and had given its findings relying on settlement parcha and the compromise. As such the case should not have been remanded to the trial court. Since all the material was before the court it was incumbent upon it to decide the whole case on merits in its own way. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the appellate court has given sound reasons for remand. The admission of the father of Shri Nathu appellant ought to have been given weight by the trial court. Since the father of the plaintiff Shri Nathu had admitted in his previous statement that the defendants-plaintiffs are the co-tenant of the suit land for two baoli (two pairs of bullocks) compromise alone could not brush aside the factum of possession. From the perusal of the judgment given by the trial court we find that the trial court had discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence issue wise and given reasons for its conclusion. While the first appellate court has not discussed the oral evidence and has not given the reasons to discard them. The first appellate court is a court of record and has full power to go into the evidence and come to its independant decision. It is not proper for the first appellate court to shirk the responsibility which has been vested by law on the first appellate court. It is mandatory provision of law that where evidence on record is sufficient it is the duty of the first appellate court to determine the case finally. Even if it is necessary to resettle the issues the first appellate court can resettle them and finally determine the suit notwithstanding that the judgment of the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly on some ground other than that which the appellate court proceeds. It is of great importance that the justice should not be delayed. Under the circumstances we accept this appeal, set aside the remand order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 27. 3. 61 and remand the case to the Revenue Appellate Authority for hearing the parties afresh and decide the case on its merits giving full reasons for its conclusion. .;