JUDGMENT
V.P. Tyagi, J.
1. This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and the decree of the Additional District Judge, Tonk, dated 19th February, 1973 dismissing the plaintiff’s suit on a preliminary issue that a mere declaration without seeking consequential relief cannot be granted by the Court.
2. This case has a chequered career. It was filed in the year 1966 but it was dismissed previously also on a preliminary issue. In appeal this Court remanded the case.
3. Plaintiff brought a suit against the University of Rajasthan and impleaded Shri Mohan Singh Mehta, ex-Vice Chancellor as one of the defendants. Shri Omprakash Mathur, who was appointed as the Director of College of Commerce in the University in place of the plaintiff was the main defendant and it was prayed that a declaration be given in favour of toe plaintiff that be was the duly appointed Director on 8th July, 1963 in the University College of Commerce, Jaipur and that it may be declared that the appointment of Shri Omprakash Mathur defendant No. 2 was illegal and unauthorised, & therefore a prohibitory order be issued against the University restraining it from confirming Shri Omprakash Mathur in the post of the Director of Commerce College run by the University,
4. After the written statements were filed by the defendants, the trial court framed as many as 27 issues While disposing of issue No. 27 the trial court chose to dismiss the entire suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came in appeal before this Court against that judgment of the learned Additional Dist. Judge. Learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 30th March, 1972 allowed the appeal & remanded the case to toe file of the original court with a direction that the entire suit may be tried and disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
5. It appears that after the case came before the trial court, the trial court heard the arguments on issue No. 10. This issue was divided into 2 parts, 10 (a) & 10 (b). After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff had not prayed for any consequential relief in respect of relief No. 1, the suit cannot be maintained and therefore again without trying the whole suit it was dismissed in toto. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff appellant.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even if for the sake of argument, it may be admitted that the judgment of the trial court on issue No. 10 was correct, the entire suit could not be dismissed because the court was under obligation to decide the issues pertaining to reliefs contained is paras 45(a) and (b) of the plaint These two reliefs relate to the declaration about the appointment of defendant No. 2 Shri Omprakash Mathur and the prohibitory order sought to be issued by the court against the University that Shri Mathur may not be confirmed,
7. Obviously the dismissal of the entire suit while deciding issue No. 10 is erroneous. Entire suit of the plaintiff could not be thrown away by the trial court in the manner it has been done in this case. It was necessary for the court below to record finding on every issue if the case was ripe for the decision on all the issues There was a direction issued by this Court while deciding the previous appeal that the trial court shall decide the entire suit of the plaintiff but it appears that the court did not pay any heed to that direction.
8. Learned Counsel for the parties are not in a position to say whether the suit is ripe for decision on all the issues. It is however agreed between the learned Counsel for the parties that it the case is remanded by this court to get this decision on all the issues, then the parties shall produce their respective evidence in the court as expeditiously as possible.
9. It is contended by Mr. Agarwal that this Court may not decide the appeal of the plaintiff appellant on issue No. 10 and keep it pending and remand the case directing the court below to try the other issues and record its finding thereon and then submit its decision to this Court within a time which may be specified by this Court. I feel that it will not be in the interest of justice to decide the case of the plaintiff piece meal. It is, therefore, ordered that while keeping the appeal pending in respect of issue No. 10, the case may be remanded to the trial court with a direction that other issues may be tried by the court and may record its finding on each issue and submit the record to this Court within a period of four months. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the trial court on 26th September, 1975 and the court shall fix a date for recording of evidence of the parties if they desire to adduce any and the evidence may be recorded day to day.
10. With this direction, the case is remanded to the trial court.