JUDGMENT The appellant/plaintiff Central Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of Rs.77,099.40 P. against respondent No.1 Ishwar Saran Gupta -- the borrower-and Chamapal Rathore and Niwaran Swaroop Gupta -- both guarantors of Ishwar Saran Gupta. Niwaran Swaroop Gupta died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. They are respondents 3 to 11. The suit was filed on the allegation that the respondent No.1 was sanctioned cash-credit limit with quarterly rest,i.e. the interest charged on the principal debt is added to the principal sum after three months and that becomes the principal sum for the purpose of interest and repayment on expiry of the third month and that continues. The plaintiff-Bank alleged in para 8 of the plaint that the respondent No.1/defendant has admitted his liability of the payment of the loan amount to the Bank on 28.4.1980, 5.8.1981, 5.5.1981 and 4.1.1983 for Rs.23,605.91, Rs.30,226.43, Rs.33,672.96 and Rs.44,992.30 and further in para 15 that the amount due against the respondent No.1, after calculation of interest, is Rs.77,099.40 at the time of the institution of the suit. The above mentioned allegations made by the plaintiff are denied by the defendants/respondents in para 8 of the written statement wherein it has been alleged that the allegations made in para 8 of the plaint are denied and that the Bank had made illegal calculations and the amount which has been said to be due against the defendants is neither lawful nor is liable to be recovered from them. Further, in para 10 of the written statement it has been stated that the allegations made in para 10 of the plaint are denied and that the calculation of the amount is based on illegal calculation of interest and, therefore, the amount said to be recoverable from the defendants is not recoverable from them. Further, in para 10 of the written statement it has been stated that the allegations made in para 10 of the plaint are denied and that the calculation of the amount is based on illegal calculation of interest and, therefore, the amount said to be recoverable from the defendants is not recoverable from them. The trial Court has not framed any issue as to the amount due from the respondents/defendants to the plaintiff, the claim made by the Bank is to the effect that the interest has been properly calculated and the interest became part of the principal amount after every three months, the allegation of the defendants that interest was not properly calculated goes to the root of the matter, that is to say, the respondents have challenged the principal amount liable to be paid by them, as alleged by the plaintiff in its suit and in such a circumstance, in my opinion, the Court should have framed an issue on this point and tried the same on merits. The trial Court has assumed as if the defendants have admitted their liability and passed the decree for the amount claimed by the Bank with interest. The trial Court has, however, granted facility of instalment for the payment of the decreetal amount by fixing instalment of Rs.1 0,000/- per annum. The appellant-Bank has challenged the grant of instalments to the defendants. Across-objection was also filed by the principal debtor-- respondent No. 1, and respondent Nos.2, 3, and 5, who are the guarantors under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The cross-objection filed by the guarantors, i.e., respondents 2, 3, and 5 was dismissed by this Court as barred by limitation. However, the cross-objection of the principal debtor, i.e. the respondent No.1 survive, which raises a similar question that interest has not been properly calculated by the Bank and, therefore, could not have been any decree as granted by the trial Court. The principal question as to how much amount is due to the Bank having not tried by the trial Court by framing an issue, the respondents submitted that they have suffered an irrepairable injury,inamuch as, had the interest portion been settled by the Court by framing an issue, they would not have been required to pay the amount as decreed against them. It is settled law that no party should suffer for the mistake of the Court. I am of the opinion that the Court should have framed an issue, on the pleadings of the parties as contained in para 8 and 10 of the plaint and the reply thereto in the written statement and should have tried the issue. As the trial Court has assumed as if the defendants/respondents have admitted the claim of the plaintiff/appellant and decreed the claim, it committed an error of law. Under the circumstances, the appeal preferred by the appellant- Bank is dismissed and the cross-objection preferred by the respondent No.1 is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside. The trial Court is directed to frame an issue on the basis of the pleadings of the parties as contained in paras 8 and 10 of the plaint and written statement apart from the issues already framed, and adjudicate the matter afresh, after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The record of the case be sent back to the trial Court immediately, as the matter is pending since long. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 23.11.1992 and the trial Court shall take necessary steps in accordance with law.