RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE present First Appeal is filed on 24th September, 2001 being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 17/07/2001 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Gondal in Special Civil Suit No. 14 of 1989. ( 2 ) ON 26/12/2001, this Court passed the following order : "admit. Expedited. " on the accompanied Civil Application No. 13072 of 2001, the Court was pleased to pass the following order :"rule returnable on 4-2-2002. Parties are directed to maintain status quo. " ( 3 ) ON 18th June, 2002, the learned Advocate for the appellant-applicant pointed out that the defendants, after having filed written statement at Exh. 29, did not remain present before the Court below, as is mentioned in the judgement under challenge before this Court. The learned Advocate also pointed out the nature of controversy involved in the matter. He submitted that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has committed gross error in dismissing the suit despite answering the issue no. 1-"whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property is still a joint property", in the affirmative, and, after having answered issue no. 2-"whether the defendant no. 1 proves that the plaintiff has separated from the family by taking his share as per oral partition", in the negative. ( 4 ) THIS Court passed the following order in the Civil Application :"rule was issued on 26/12/01. Though Rule is served, nobody appears. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till final disposal of the First Appeal. The office is directed to list the First Appeal for final hearing in the 1st week of July, 2002. " ( 5 ) TODAY, the matter was mentioned by the learned Advocate for the appellant-applicant. He requested that the matter may be heard today as the matter is listed for final hearing and so far no appearance is caused for the respondents. ( 6 ) HEARD Mr. M. K. Purohit, learned Advocate for the appellant. Perused the papers. It is, indeed, surprising that there was no reason for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff when the learned Judge answered issue no. 1 in the affirmative and issue no. 2 in the negative. The learned Advocate for the appellant pointed out that for no valid reasons, the learned Judge has answered issue no. 3-"whether the plaintiff has any share in the suit property? 1 in the affirmative and issue no. 2 in the negative. The learned Advocate for the appellant pointed out that for no valid reasons, the learned Judge has answered issue no. 3-"whether the plaintiff has any share in the suit property? Yes, how much share?" in the negative. The learned Advocate invited the attention of the Court to the entire discussion on the issue in the impugned judgement. In the judgement, there are no cogent reasons for which issue no. 3 could have been answered in the negative and the suit could have been dismissed. ( 7 ) IN the result, the present First Appeal is allowed. The judgement and decree dated 17/07/2001 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Gondal in Special Civil Suit No. 14 of 1989 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh. No order as to costs. ( 8 ) IN view of the above order on the main First Appeal, Civil Application No. 13072 of 2001 does not survive and the same is disposed of. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. .