JUDGMENT This is defendant's appeal. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The defendant filed an appeal but remained unsuccessful. The plaintiff's case was that defendant started digging foundation on 15.9.1980 on a piece of land regarding which he had no title. Thy plaintiff's case was that he was dispossessed on 13th of September 1980 and the present suit was riled on 16th of September 1980. At the time when this appeal was admitted a question of law was formulated -- "whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of declaration and injunction when admittedly he was not in possession of the land" When this appeal was taken up for hearing, an argument was addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant that there has been procedural irregularity in the trial of the suit and the trial is vitiated. It is stated that the issues were' framed on 4th of February, 1982. Thereafter, 19th of February, 1982 was fixed for settlement of issues. The case was fixed for evidence of the parties for 1st of April 1982. On this date, the plaintiff's evidence was examined. The plaintiff also appeared in the witness-box. The defendant/appellant, however, made a request that he may be granted one opportunity to bring his evidence. This prayer, of the defendant/appellant was declined, Arguments were heard on 8th of April, 1982 and the suit was decreed on 15th of April 1982. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. This is a case where both the parties are without a title deed. The question has necessarily to be decided on the basis of oral evidence. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was dispossessed 6n13th of September 1980 and he filed a suit on 16th of September 1980. As the dispute was to be decided on the basis of oral evidence, the trial Court should have granted one opportunity to the defendant so that he could bring his evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision given by this Court in Rumeslt Chandra v. Rameshwar dayal 1986 (11) MPWN 243 = AIR 1987 MP 110 . The reliance is also being placed on another decision in Mohaillal v. Kamal Sellgar, 1988-2-MPWN 97. The principle is well settled that justice should not only be done but it should seem to have been done. The reliance is also being placed on another decision in Mohaillal v. Kamal Sellgar, 1988-2-MPWN 97. The principle is well settled that justice should not only be done but it should seem to have been done. The denial of opportunity to the defendant/appellant to bring his evidence has definitely caused injustice to him. In the circumstances, the judgment and decrees, of the Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the first appellate Court for further proceedings. Opportunity would be given to the defendant/appellant to summon his witnesses for which he would take dasti process. The plaintiff would also have the right to lead evidence in rebuttal if permissible under the law and if the circumstances so warrant. The first appellate Court will take steps to dispose of the matter within a period of six months. The first appellate Court will also decide the question with regard to the maintainability of the suit in its present form i.e., the plea of the defendant that the suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff as out of possession would also be gone into. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There would be no order as to costs.