RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) ). ADMIT. Mr. D. R. Dave, learned Advocate, appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent. ( 2 ) ). THE present First Appeal is filed against the judgement and order dated 1/05/1999 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Banaskantha District, Palanpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 106 of 1994, dismissing the suit of the appellant-original plaintiff with costs. ( 3 ) ). THE suit was filed by the present appellant for getting compensation due to the death of his father, Chelabhai Kasabhai Koli, on account of break down of an electric wire from the electric pole, and was lying on the public road. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was contested by the present respondent - original defendant, Gujarat Electricity Board, on the ground that the plaintiff had no relationship with the deceased. Though the said defence was agitated in the reply filed in the suit at Exh. 34, the learned Judge did not frame any issue on that point. On the contrary, the learned Judge framed issue no. 1, which reads as under, and answered the same in the negative :"whether plaintiff proves that due to the negligency of defendant, electric wire has been laid down on the public road and the death of plaintiffs father has been occurred?" ( 4 ) ). MR. Soni, learned Advocate for the appellant, pointed out the discussion of the learned Judge in the impugned judgement, which reads as under :"the plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship with deceased Chela Kasa and he has failed to show that he is the son of Chela Kasa. Therefore, another question regarding the negligency on the part of defendant of 11 K. V. electric wire has been laid down on the public road which was alive and deceased Chela Kasa has met with an accident and that accident has resulted into the death that question does not survived. " ( 5 ) ). MR. Soni is right in his submission that the learned Judge has misdirected himself in not only framing the issues, but also in answering the issue no. 1 in negative and thereafter, saying that issue nos. 2 and 3 do not survive, on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved the relationship with the deceased. ( 6 ) ). MR. Soni is right in his submission that the learned Judge has misdirected himself in not only framing the issues, but also in answering the issue no. 1 in negative and thereafter, saying that issue nos. 2 and 3 do not survive, on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved the relationship with the deceased. ( 6 ) ). MR. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, supported the judgement and decree of the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), B. K. District, Palanpur, and submitted that there is no ground on which this First Appeal is to be entertained by this Court. ( 7 ) ). IT is to be noted that if the issue regarding the relationship was raised by the defendant in his reply at Exh. 34, the Trial Court ought to have framed an issue on that point and should have recorded its finding on the same after according necessary opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence. Having not done so, to answer the issue by saying that, `as the plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship with the deceased Chela Kasa, the question of negligence does not survive, is definitely an error which warrants interference at the hands of this Court. The learned Trial Judge having erred in not framing necessary issue and deciding the issues framed on an extraneous ground, requires to be set right by this Court. ( 8 ) ). IN the result, the First Appeal is allowed, The judgement and order dated 1/05/1999 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Banaskantha District, Palanpur in Special Civil Suit No. 106 of 1994 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for retrial after framing appropriate issues in the matter. ( 9 ) ). AS regards the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1904 of 1999 filed for recording additional evidence, this Court restrain itself from passing any order on the same and reserves liberty to the appellant-original plaintiff to file an appropriate application before the Court below. The Miscellaneous Civil Application accordingly stands disposed of. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs. In view of the above order on the main First Appeal, the Civil Application No. 10359 of 1999 does not survive and the same is disposed of. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs. .