t. J U D G M E N T This C.M.A., is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 16.09.1999, in A.S.No.69 of 1996, on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram. A.S.No.69 of 1996, in turn, arises out of O.S.No.591 of 1988, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram. The sole plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. 2. The appellant filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,000/-, on the strength of a pronote. The respondents filed a written statement, in a way, admitting the execution of the pronote. However, they pleaded that they have discharged the suit debt, and in fact, they have paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- in excess. They made a counter claim for that amount. Through its judgment, dated 21.03.1996, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, respondents filed A.S.No-69 of 1996. The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. 3. Smt.Padma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court discussed each and every issue framed in the suit, with reference to the evidence on record and pleadings of the parties, and that there was no necessity for the appellate Court to remand the matter. She submits that the remand would provide the respondents, an opportunity to fill the gaps in the evidence or to come forward with fictitious documents to defeat the claim of the appellant. 4. Sri M.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though a specific plea was raised by his clients as to discharge of the suit debt and issues were framed thereon, the trial Court did not deal with the same, and the necessity to remand the matter was felt, in that context. 5. The suit was filed on the basis of a pronote, dated 01.12.1987. The respondents did not dispute the execution of the pronote but have pleaded discharge of the same. The trial Court framed the following issues. a) Whether the 1st defendant gave a banker’s cheque bearing No.BN/ll-369112 for Rs.20,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and whether the 1st defendant also gave a withdrawal form duly signed by him, for Rs.488.30 ps. to the plaintiff in lieu of the amount covered by the pronote dated 01.12.1987? b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of decree as prayed for? to the plaintiff in lieu of the amount covered by the pronote dated 01.12.1987? b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of decree as prayed for? c) To what reliefs? 6. Two additional issues were framed to the following effect: 1) Whether the discharge of the suit promissory note as pleaded by the defendants is true and correct? 2) Whether the defendants are entitled for the amount claimed with interest thereon as per their counter claim made in their written statement? 7. A reading of the issues originally framed and the additional issues discloses that the latter are nothing but different facets of the former. The appellant examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. The 1st respondent examined himself as DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that some of the documents marked in ‘A’ series were filed at the instance of the respondents. The lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, mainly on the ground that the additional issues, referred to above, were not discussed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the Judgment reads as under: “After considering the foregoing material placed by both parties, and considering the earlier foregoing paragraphs, vis-a-vis, the said two additional issues framed by the trial Court, and set forth in para No. 12, supra, and especially, when there is no specific consideration on these specific additional issues, and recording of specific findings thereon, apart from not specifically mentioning the same in the impugned judgment, I am not satisfied with the impugned judgment, and the findings recorded by it, that, D.1 and D.2 are liable to pay the suit amount, etc. Also, there is nothing, on record, to show, that, the trial Court applied its mind, in respect of those two specific issues, and recording findings, separately, on these specific issues. Even if the said trial Court made a general discussion on the subject matter covered thereby, in its impugned judgment, when the trial Court did not mention in the impugned judgment, these two additional issues, it cannot be conceived, that, therefore, apart from other aspects, the trial Court considered these additional issues. Even if the said trial Court made a general discussion on the subject matter covered thereby, in its impugned judgment, when the trial Court did not mention in the impugned judgment, these two additional issues, it cannot be conceived, that, therefore, apart from other aspects, the trial Court considered these additional issues. Also, it cannot be conceived, that, the trial Court gave due and reasonable opportunities to both parties, and, at least, to D.1 and D.2, in respect thereof, and, especially when D.1 and D.2 urged that due opportunities were not given to them, in respect thereof. Even otherwise, as already observed, to substantiate these additional issues, some more evidence is required. If neither, or both, parties do not adduce such evidence, then, the Court can close the evidence, but, where the parties want to adduce evidence, then, reasonable opportunities should be given, and then only, evidence has to be closed.” 8. The approach of the lower appellate Court does not accord with the settled principles of law. Way back, in the year 1963, the Supreme Court in NEDUNURI KAMESWARA RAO V. SAMPATI SUBBA RAO(1), held that where the parties in a suit understand the scope of the controversy between them and lead evidence, mere absence of an issue, is not fatal to the judgment rendered in it. The purpose of framing of issues is to enable the Court as well as the parties, to know the area of controversy, and to permit the parties to lead evidence, in relation to the issues so framed. It is not uncommon that even after framing several issues, discussion is undertaken by clubbing many such issues. Law does not require that discussion shall take place with reference to each and every issue. 9. A perusal of the issues and additional issues that were framed by the trial Court further disclose that the purport of the additional issues was only as to the discharge of the suit claim and that, in fact, that was the purport of issue No. 1. 10. The observation of the lower appellate Court that more evidence was needed to decide the issues is equally untenable. Once the parties understand the scope of controversy, it is for them to lead evidence. It is no part of the duty of a Court to see whether the parties have adduced adequate evidence. 10. The observation of the lower appellate Court that more evidence was needed to decide the issues is equally untenable. Once the parties understand the scope of controversy, it is for them to lead evidence. It is no part of the duty of a Court to see whether the parties have adduced adequate evidence. The function of the Court is to decide the matter, on the basis of the evidence, that is adduced by the parties. If one of the parties or both of them have chosen not to adduce evidence to prove their contention, the Court cannot exhort them to come forward with further evidence. If matters are to be remanded only on these grounds, it would enable the parties to fill the lacunae. This Court has chosen not to refer to the findings recorded by the trial Court, lest it be treated as an approval or disapproval of the same in this C.M.A. 11. Hence, the judgment and decree under appeal are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court for disposal, on merits. Since, the suit was of the year 1998, it is directed that the appeal shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of the records. 12. The C.M.A., is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. --X—