JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.This appeal is against the order dated 29.1.2004 by which the first appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the issue of comparative hardship. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the trial court decided the issue of comparative hardship. However, learned counsel for the appellant admits that no specific issue was framed by the trial court about comparative hardship of the parties in case decree for eviction is granted or not granted. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, when both the parties knowing fully well about the nature of the litigation, led the evidence which was considered by the trial court and the trial court recorded the finding of fact about the comparative hardship, then absence of a specific issue cannot be ground to remand the matter to the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no specific issue was framed and, therefore, the respondent-defendant could not produce the evidence to prove comparative hardship which is likely to be suffered by the defendant-respondent. 4. I perused the reasons given in the impugned order and also perused the statement of defendant, copy of which is provided by the learned counsel for the appellant. The trial court, while deciding the issue No. 5, specifically considered the question of comparative hardship to the parties and recorded finding. In the statement of DW1, there is clear stand taken that in case decree for eviction is passed, he will suffer greater hardship. In view of the above, when the parties were aware about the nature of the litigation, then there was no reason for the first appellate court to remand the matter to frame an issue and permit both the parties to lead evidence before recording finding. 5. In view of the above, the order of the first appellate court dated 29.1.2004 is liable to be set aside. 6. In view of the above discussions, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. The order of the first appellate court dated 29.1.2004 is set aside. The first appellate court is requested to decide the appeal of the appellant expeditiously. *******