dispossessed the plaintiff (PW1) of the plaint schedule land and have perfected title to the land by adverse possession and limitation. Thus, the finding/observation made by the lower court that PW1 has been dispossessed of the plaint schedule land is totally unacceptable and unsustainable. There is nothing to suggest that the lower court has adverted to the above facts. Thus, obviously, the grounds alleged in the memorandum of appeal are sufficient to warrant interference with the judgment and decree of the lower court; pertinently, one of the main contentions in the appeal memorandum is that the plaintiff has not been given an opportunity to submit his arguments; the observation made by the learned Munsiff also suggest that the plaintiff has not obtained an opportunity to submit his arguments. True, the lower court has observed that the omission has occurred due to the default on the part of the lawyer; however, the plaintiff should have been given one more opportunity to submit his arguments; that was not done. Thus, in the interest of justice, the matter has to be remanded to the lower court for disposing of the suit afresh after giving opportunities to the parties for adducing further evidence, if any, and to submit their arguments regarding the aforesaid aspects. As I pointed out herein before, the lower court had ignored all the materials produced by the parties and had jumped to a conclusion on the basis of the erroneous findings rendered by it on the 1st and 2nd issues framed by it. Concededly the suit was disposed of after a full fledged trial and the lower court had not considered the issue Nos. 1 and 2 as preliminary issues. Point Nos. 4 and 6 are found in favour of the plaintiff.”
