AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.
The High Court has framed the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the learned court of appeal below erred in law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on the basis of the fact finding that the orders of settlements were not controverted. Although the said orders were found to be illegal and without jurisdiction by the trial Court."
While deciding the appeal, it appears that none of the parties had brought to the notice of the High Court that what was the substantial question of law that was framed. The High Court has decided the issue in para 8 of the maintainability of the suit without prayer for recovery of possession. It was rightly conceded by learned counsel for the parties that the High Court ought to have framed additional substantial question(s) of law on the aforesaid aspect but that was not so done.
As High Court has not framed the question(s) of law on the issue on which it has decided the caseand the substantial question of law framed has not been adverted to, we remit the case to the High Court to frame additional question(s) of law as well as to decide previously framed substantial question of law if it arises for consideration and to render decision afresh after hearing the parties.
We make it clear we have not commented on the merits of the case. All the contentions are kept open.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and, in the circumstance, parties to bear their own costs.
Registry is directed to sent the original record back to the concerned Court.