Honble YADAV, J. – Instant first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1989 passed by learned District Judge, Merta in Civil Original Suit No. 26/84 dismissing the suit on the ground of its non-maintainability as envisaged under Sec. 4 (1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 45 of 1988) as well as under Sec. 281-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. (2). Without delineating the facts and circumstances of the present case in detail it is sufficient to state that on the pleadings of the parties. Learned trial court framed as many as 23 issues. Out of which, issues No. 21 and 22 were treated to be preliminary issues. The learned trial court has framed issue No. 21 to the effect as to whether the suit is barred under Sec. 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and issue No. 22 framed to the effect whether the present suit is barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The learned trial court dealt with the aforesaid two preliminary issues by a composite judgment dated 16.11.89 and arrived at a conclusion that the present suit is barred under Sec. 281A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 as well as Act No. 45 of 1988. (3). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment given by the learned trial court. (4) Suffice it to say in this regard that when the learned trial court was deciding the issue No. 21 the mandatory provision made under Sec. 7 of Act No. 45 of 1988 was not brought to its notice which clearly provides that after enforcement of the aforesaid Act, Sec. 281A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was repealed and was abrogated from the statute book. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court has committed substantial error of law and procedure in dismissing the suit on the ground that it is not maintainable because of Sec. 281A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (5). As regards the decision given by the learned trial court on issue No. 22 to the effect that the suit is barred under Act No. 45 of 1988. (5). As regards the decision given by the learned trial court on issue No. 22 to the effect that the suit is barred under Act No. 45 of 1988. Suffice it to say in this regard that the decision given by the learned trial court is not sustainable in view of the decision given by the Apex Court in case of R. Raja Gopal Reddy (dead) by Lrs. vs. Padmini Chandra Shekharan (Dead) by Lrs. (1). (6). It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the present controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of R. Raja Gopal Reddy (supra). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, the judgment and decree under appeal given by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside. (7). In view of what has been discussed above, the judgment and decree under appeal passed by the learned District Judge, Merta dated 16.11.1989 is hereby set aside and instant first appeal is allowed and the case is remanded back to the learned trial court with a direction to re-admit the suit and register the same at its original number and try all the remaining issues on merits. (8). Before parting with the judgment it is observed that the instant suit was filed in the year 1984 and now more than 12 years have expired, hence, I direct both the parties to appear before the trial court on 20.5.97. The learned trial court is also directed to decide the suit between the parties on remaining issues expeditiously preferably within one year from today. It is made clear that the learned trial court will not grant any unnecessary adjournments without being satisfied with the reasons given therefor. (9). Record be remitted to the learned trial court forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.