D. Biswas, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.6.97 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No.2, Cachar, Silchar in Money Suit No. 44 of 1990 decreeing the suit for realisation of Rs. 5,50,785.74 with interest @ 6% per annum. Being aggrieved thereby the defendants have preferred this appeal on various grounds incorporated in the memo of appeal. 2. We have heard Shri NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Shri PC Deka, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 3. Before averting to the contentions raised in this appeal, it would be necessary to reproduce here in nutshell the case of the respective parties. An agreement was entered into by the parties on 16..1.89 whereby the defendant producer and seller of green tea leaves, agreed to sell and supply the entire production of his garden in the year 1989 to the plaintiff respondents. The price of the tea per kilogram was also fixed at Rs. 2250. The respondent also advanced a sum of Rs. 2,10.000 to the defendant-appellant free of interest. 4. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants produced a total quantity of 3,22,776 Kgs of green tea leaves out of which only 2,30,600 Kgs were supplied to them while the remaining part of the production measuring 92,174 Kgs were sold to other parties in violation of the terms of the contract. Hence, the said money suit was instituted for realisation of the amount of Rs. 5,50,785 by way of compensation and damages caused due to short supply. 5. The defendants in their written statement admitted that there was a contract between them, but they refused to accept that 92,174 Kgs of green leaf were supplied to other parties in violation of the contract. The defence case available from the averments made in paragraph 8 of the written statement is that they supplied the entire production of the tea leaves grown by them to the plaintiff and the value thereof was in excess of the amount received by them from the plaintiff. According to them a sum of Rs. 1,16,445 is still payable to them. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge framed the following issues: (1) Is there any cause of action ? (2) Is the suit barred by limitation ? (3) Is the suit barred by the Contract Act and SR Act ? According to them a sum of Rs. 1,16,445 is still payable to them. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge framed the following issues: (1) Is there any cause of action ? (2) Is the suit barred by limitation ? (3) Is the suit barred by the Contract Act and SR Act ? (4) Did the defendant supplied the green leaves as stated in para 8 of the WS and the defendant is entitled to Rs. 1,14,445.20 paise from the plaintiff as prayed ? (5) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to? 7. The plaintiff, in order to sustainable their claim, examined two witnesses i.e. the Manager and the Accountant of the plaintiff company. However, the defendant did not adduce any evidence. 8. Shri PC Deka, learned senior counsel submitted that the defendants in their written statement did not in express term denied the claim of the plaintiff as set forth in Annexure 10 which was a part of the plaint and this omission on their part may be presumed to be admission of the claim of the plaintiffs. That apart, omission on the part of the defendants to adduce evidence to prove that the entire production of green tea leave was supplied as pleaded in written statement should also be a factor to accept the plaintiff's claim for compensation and damages. In support of this Shri Deka has referred to a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1991) 3 SCC 151. The Apex Court in the judgment referred by Shri PC Deka upheld the ex parte order passed against the defendant for his eviction on consideration that the defendant did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim of tenancy. In the case before the Supreme Court, the title of the plaintiff was not in dispute. Here, the pleadings of the respective parties indicate that the main contention centres around the alleged non-supply of 92,174 Kgs of green leaves and, even by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the defendant have admitted the short supply. In fact, the written statement filed by the defendants show that they resisted the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. The dispute here being completely different in nature, the ratio available in the case, referred to above, is of no significance for determining the issue at hand. 9. In fact, the written statement filed by the defendants show that they resisted the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. The dispute here being completely different in nature, the ratio available in the case, referred to above, is of no significance for determining the issue at hand. 9. Now we would like to discuss the evidence oh record. The evidence of PW 1 regarding the production of green tea leaves by the defendants during the year 1989 appears to be based on presumption and surmises. According to PW 1,3,22,776 Kgs of green tea leaves were produced by the defendants during the year 1989 and only 2,30,602 Kgs were supplied to them. PW 1 also relied upon Ext 10 a statement prepared by the PW 2, the Accountant of the plaintiff company, in order to show that the total production of green tea leaves and the short supply made. During the course of cross examination he admitted that he had gathered the information about production from other sources. The other sources from which he could come to know about the total quantity of green tea leaves produced have also not been disclosed by him. He also admitted during the course of his cross examination that the source of information has not been described in the plaint. In fact, the evidence of PW 1 is based on Ext 10, a document prepared by his own Accountant and it is of no significance. The evidence of PW 1 is obviously hearsay in nature and, therefore, has no evidentiary value. The statement made by the PW 2 Gopi Ram also stands on same footing with that of PW 1. PW 2 prepared Ext 10, but he could not tell from where he had collected the statistics a and figures incorporated in Ext 10 to show that defendants had produced 3,22,776 Kgs of green leaves. In his cross examination, PW 2 also could not give any satisfactory reply to justify the figures quoted in Ext 10. It is significant to note here that this witness had also admitted that they do not maintain any account in respect of the tea leaves produced by the defendants. 10. The evidence of both the witnesses read together does not inspire this Court to come to the conclusion that the defendant in violation of the terms of the contract failed to supply 92,174 Kgs of green tea leaves to the plaintiff-respondent. 10. The evidence of both the witnesses read together does not inspire this Court to come to the conclusion that the defendant in violation of the terms of the contract failed to supply 92,174 Kgs of green tea leaves to the plaintiff-respondent. There is also no cogent and reliable evidence to conclude that the defendant produced 3,22,780 Kgs of green leaves during that period. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff-respondent in support of their claim is inadequate and not worthy of credence to enable this Court to agree with the learned Civil Judge that the plaintiff respondents are entitled to the impugned decree for compensation and damage. 11. Shri PC Deka, learned senior counsel, further submitted that issues have not been properly directed and for this reason the plaintiff respondents have been prejudiced as they could not produce appropriate and adequate evidence in support of their claim. But from the pleadings as well as the evidence as discussed above, it appears that the bone of contention was known to both the parties in depth, and the plaintiff-respondent also adduced evidence to substantiate their claim. Although there was no specific issue framed in respect of the claim of the plaintiff-respondent, yet, in our opinion, issue No. 5 squarely covers their case. That being so and the plaintiff-respondent having adduced evidence both oral and documentary, they cannot now raise the plea that they have failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support their claim. The plaintiff-respondent could not show as to how they have been prejudiced for non-framing of issues with regard to their claim. Here, we may conveniently refer to a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 884 , Nedunuri Kameswaramma vs. Sampati Subba Rao, wherein the Supreme Court held that where the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all, the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or that there was mistrial which vitiates proceedings. The ratio laid dawn therein squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. As already stated above, the parties knew each other's case and the plaintiff-respondent adduced evidence in support of their claim. The ratio laid dawn therein squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. As already stated above, the parties knew each other's case and the plaintiff-respondent adduced evidence in support of their claim. We are, therefore, not in a position to appreciate the argument made on behalf of the respondents. Even if the case is remanded back, the plaintiff-respondent will not be able to adduce any acceptable evidence in view of admission made by PW 1 and 2 that they do not maintain any record of production of green tea leaves by the defendant-appellants. That apart, remand would mean an additional opportunity to adduce evidence to fill up and supplement the deficiencies which are apparent on the face of record. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decree passed by the learned trial Court is based on evidence not acceptable in law and, therefore, it has to be set aside. 12. Before parting with the record, we would like to observe that the learned trial Judge should have shown better understanding and knowledge in framing of issues. The duty is cast on the Presiding Officer of the Court to frame issues on consideration of the pleadings. Deficiency in this regard on the part of a Presiding Officer is likely to result into miscarriage of justice. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree are hereby set aside. Consequently, Money Suit No. 44 of 1990 is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. 14. At this stage Shri Lahiri, learned senior counsel pointed out that the appellant had deposited 50% of the decretal amount at the time of admission of the appeal and the said amount was withdrawn by the respondents by furnishing security vide order dated 24.12.98. The said amount, withdrawn by the respondents, shall be refunded to the appellant within a period of six weeks.