JUDGMENT M. Saidullah, Member - Due to passing away of national leader Sri Jai Prakash Narain the Court is in a suit under section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record of the courts below. This appeal must succeed because the trial court has committed a patent illegality in not mentioning a word about the oral evidence. With the help of the learned counsel for the appellant I went through the decision of the trial court in its entirety and found that neither the names of witnesses produced by the parties was mentioned nor any reference to the oral evidence was made by the trial court. It has been the consistent view of this court that oral evidence must be discussed and analysed by the trial courts and in case it feels satisfied that the oral evidence was not worthy of reliance it should give a finding in so many words. The practise of ignoring and discarding oral evidence altogether and depending entirely on documents produced by the parties is a risky procedure and subordinate courts are well advised to be aware of this danger. Learned lower appellate court has referred to the witnesses and their evidence but the analysis is so brief that the trial court's effort can only amount to misreading of evidence by the court. There have been numerous rulings of this court on this point which I need not go into at this stage. I, therefore, allow appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below and remand the case to the trial court with the direction that it will rewrite the judgment properly after analysing the entire oral and documentary evidence and give its judgment within two months. It is also made clear that no further evidence will be allowed to be led by either party and the judgment will be confined to the available record. Costs easy.