This second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the concurrent decrees of the lower courts whereby the respondents suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute was decreed. 2. We have heard the appellants counsel and as the respondent was unrepresented before us, we have carefully gone through the entire record. Keeping in view the order that we are making in the case, we refrain from expressing any opinion in the matter at this stage. The plaintiff Bala brought the suit against Thakurlal and Nanda defendants for recovery of possession over the land in dispute with the allegations that Thakurlal wrongfully dispossessed the Plaintiff in Svt. 2009. Thereafter he mortgaged the land with Nanda, defendant No. 2. Both the defendants denied the allegations contained in the plaint. Thakurlal pleaded that the land has been in his possession since 12 years, as the plaintiff had absconded since then. The trial court framed the following issues— 1. Is the defendant number ones possession over the land in dispute adverse and the suit is not maintainable ? 2. Did not the defendant number 1 admit the defendant No. 2 upon the land for one year ? 3. Relief. 3. It is really strange that the most important issue which ought to have been framed in the case did not occur itself to the mind of the learned S.D.O. The plaintiff based his claim upon the allegations that he had been in possession over the land in dispute till Svt. 2009 and that he was dispossessed wrongfully thereafter. The first issue naturally should have been as to whether the plaintiff was dispossessed wrongfully in Svt. 2009 as alleged by him The question as to whether the right to sue became barred by adverse possession or not came subsequent to the above point. It is still more strange that even in view of the denial of the plaintiffs claim in the written statement the trial court decreed the suit when absolutely no evidence whatsoever was led by the plaintiff in support of his claim. The defendant was allowed a number of chances to lead his evidence and they were not availed of by him. That may provide justification for striking off his defence. But the first and foremost question is as to whether the plaintiff had been able to establish his case or not. The defendant was allowed a number of chances to lead his evidence and they were not availed of by him. That may provide justification for striking off his defence. But the first and foremost question is as to whether the plaintiff had been able to establish his case or not. The trial has been, therefore, highly irregular and incomplete We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower court and remand the case back to the trial court with the directions that after framing proper issues, the suit be tried and decided afresh in accordance with law.