T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) IT is indeed a very sorry state of affairs that the Trial court in a suit for partition has framed as many as 10 main issues and two additional issues and has chosen to hold that issues 1 to 9 does not survive and issue No. 2 is not answered at all. He has taken into consideration only the issue regarding the suit as if barred by res judicata and whether the suit is barred under Order 2 rule 2, CPC, Though the plaintiff has gone to the box and examined RWs. 1 to 5 marking ex. P. 1 to 18 and defendants side also there was evidence of D. Ws. 1 to 5 apart from documents d. 1 to D. 12 the learned Judge has not chosen to give a finding on all issues after the amendment of Order 14 Rule 2, CPC which is as follows:"court to pronounce judgment on all issues.- (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a Bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. "thus, the amendmenthas evidently escaped the attention of the learned Judge and if the basic requirement of the law is forgotten by the Judge we have got to only pity the fate of the litigant and the party who are before such a Judge. Even, otherwise the case is one for partition. The defence was that there was earlier a suit for partition which has been decreed. But the fact remains that though preliminary decree was passed in that earlier suit, the papers were not send to the Deputy Commissioner on the plea that there was oral partition thereafter. Even, otherwise the case is one for partition. The defence was that there was earlier a suit for partition which has been decreed. But the fact remains that though preliminary decree was passed in that earlier suit, the papers were not send to the Deputy Commissioner on the plea that there was oral partition thereafter. Therefore, the decree should have been satisfied by passing a final decree and followed by an act of delivery of possession or division. The Court has not considered that aspect and chosen to believe the theory of oral partition. The result is the plaintiffs are left with nothing though there are very many properties available. The Court atleast should have decided the suit as an application for passing final decree within the meaning of law. Evidently, he was not aware of that which is again unfortunate. Inasmuch as no finding have been rendered on all issues the question of considering the same afresh as if this Court is a Trial Court in not proper. ( 2 ) IN this view, this appeal is allowed without expressing any opinion on merits and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court to consider (i) whether the suit itself can be construed as final decree proceeding, (ii) whether this could be considered as a fresh suit for partition in as much as there is no effective partition in the earlier suit. ( 3 ) THE litigant goes to the Court for getting some reliefs. The Courts are not expected to give some paper decree and ask him to go blank without stating him the reasons and that the property has been taken over by somebody or given to him. Otherwise, there is no purpose in Court being existing in this country. The real meaning of justice has been forgotten by the Trial Court and a Judge is called upon to render justice. Justice should not only be done but seem to be done. In this view, this appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to be disposed of in the light of the discussion made above. The Trial court is directed to give notice to all the parties and take up the matter and dispose it of within six months from the date of receipt of the records. Parties are directed to appear before the court on 12. 4. 1999. Appeal allowed. The Trial court is directed to give notice to all the parties and take up the matter and dispose it of within six months from the date of receipt of the records. Parties are directed to appear before the court on 12. 4. 1999. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .