RSA/2/2012 of Kinchok Tashi Tshering Lepcha Vs Karzang Bhutia on 29 August 2012

Orders (s) with Signature (s)

y on Issueis apparenreading of the paragraph which is reproduced below:- ``14. The only question for determinationbefore this Court is whether t:he suitproperty/'Gumpa' was the ancestral property ofthe Respondent/Defendant or whet:her it is publicproperty."

Under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, it has been prescribed thatthe Court shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2),pronounce judgment on all issues. Of course, this position isnotwithstanding that the case may be disposed of on apreliminary issue. In the present case, it is not the case of theparties that the case has been disposed of on the preliminaryissue. Undeniably an Appeal is a continuation of the suit and,therefore, it was incumbent for the Learned Appellate Court t:ohave considered all th? issues and pronounced judgment oneach of those.

Mr. 8. K. Rai, Learned Advocate, appearing for theRespondent, fairly concedes that, apart from what have beenstated in .paragraph 12 which only sets out the subinissionmade on behalf of the Appellant to the effect t:hat the otherissues would be rendered redundant if the decision is given onthe issue (b) above, i.e., whether t:he issue Rishum Gumpawas a juristic person capable of holding properties in its nameas this would strike t:he root of the suit:, other t:wo essentialissues have not been dealt with an, therefore, renders theimpugned judgment of the Learned Appellate Courtincomplete.

In view of t:he fair concession of Mr. 8. K. Rai, LearnedCounsel and in view of the position of law set out above, itwould be in the interest of justice if the case is remit:ted backto the Learned Appellate Court to decide on all the issues andrender ].udgrr`ent on each of them.

Case No