Siya Ram and another vs State of U.P. and others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

In a suit u/s 229B a decree was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharthana, on 1.9.2010. An appeal was preferred against the same which has been allowed holding that the trial court, without discussing each separate issue and the evidence thereon, has passed a composite casual order on a mere narration of facts and, therefore, the procedure of writing of the judgment and recording of the findings is clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the matter has been remitted for deciding the matter afresh issue-wise.

The petitioner has a remedy of preferring a revision against the appellate order before the Board of Revenue yet this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel submits that the matter may be disposed of finally by the High Court inspite of the availability of alternative remedy.

Having perused the impugned order, as a matter of fact, the trial court has not dealt with each issue separately in accordance with the principles as laid down under Order XX, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. Technically the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity and the remand order is perfectly justified. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

This writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the trial court to proceed to try all the issues separately and then deliver a judgment in the light of the observations made herein above as expeditiously as possible preferably within 6 months.