SWATANTER KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide judgment and decree dated 12th December, 2005 dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff M/s Indigenous poultry Breeding and Research Farm against Punjab and Sindh Bank and United india Insurance Company for recovery of Rs. 12,31,590. 32/ -. Aggrieved from the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff/appellant has filed the present Regular First appeal. The appellant, which is a partnership concern, through its registered partner, Shri J. S. Chatwal, filed the suit for recovery of the said amount on the ground that they had obtained certain credit facilities from respondent No. 2 for agricultural purposes. The appellant was to get its entire stock of feed, medicine, poultry breed, eggs, birds and buildings constructed at the site, namely, 38/6 Mile Stone, National Highway No. 8, Manesar Road, Village Khandsa, gurgaon (Haryana ). It was specifically agreed between the appellant and respondent No. 2 that in case of any loss occurring to the insured material or part thereof, the amount realized from the Insurance Company would be credited to the account of appellant. Insurance Policy No. 40400/01/10021669 was taken in the name of Punjab and Sindh Bank without any reference to the appellant. Even then, it was clearly stated to the appellant by the bank that on realization of the compensation amount from the Insurance Company, the credit thereof would be given to the appellant by the bank. It is the case of the appellant that due to misfortune, there occurred a devastating storm and flood during the night of 29th/30th June, 1981 and in a flash, the entire poultry farm including its sheds were flooded by the swift flood water 3-4 ft. deep which completely damaged the entire stock, medicines, feed, etc. The appellant wrote a letter to the bank informing them of the loss and also requiring them to lodge the claim with the insurance Company. Whenever the appellant tried to get information from the office of the bank, it was stated that the policy did not cover tempest and floods. Despite best efforts of the appellant, the insurance policy cover in the correspondence was not given to the appellant. In September, 1981, the appellant met Shri B. R. Suri, respondent no. 5, who was manager of the bank at the relevant time. Despite best efforts of the appellant, the insurance policy cover in the correspondence was not given to the appellant. In September, 1981, the appellant met Shri B. R. Suri, respondent no. 5, who was manager of the bank at the relevant time. Shri B. R. Suri was required and directed by the said authorities to furnish the details which still were not furnished. In furtherance to the communication dated 16. 6. 1982 received by respondent No. 4, the appellant's representative met the Regional Manager of the Insurance company, who directed a survey at the poultry farm premises. When the survey was carried out at the premises, to the best knowledge of the appellant, the surveyor had accepted the loss but the exact report was not known and the claim was not paid. According to the appellant either of the defendant was liable to make good the loss suffered, and on the basis of the above, claims the following amount:- " For all these reasons the defendant No. 5 is personally liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. All the defendants are jointly as well as severally liable to re-imburse the plaintiff. "it may be mentioned that admittedly the plaintiff has suffered the loss. If this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff's loss is to be re-imbursed then this suit may be treated as an inter-pleader suit and put the defendant No. 1 and 2 on the one hand and defendant No. 3 and 4 on the other hand to fight out between themselves as to who of them is liable to re-imburse the plaintiff's loss as claimed in the present suit. However, the liability of defendant No. 5 continues to subsist in all eventualities. " 11. That the losses sustained by the plaintiff are as follows:- ( 2 ) THE suit was contested by the respondents who took up various preliminary objections including misjoinder of cause of action and that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 19,14,009. 73/- on 13th December, 1983 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Gurgaon being suit no. 1431/83. According to the respondents, the appellant was guilty of suppressio veri. 1 and 2 had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 19,14,009. 73/- on 13th December, 1983 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Gurgaon being suit no. 1431/83. According to the respondents, the appellant was guilty of suppressio veri. The allegations made in the plaint were denied and it was stated that the appellant neither lodged any claim with the Insurance Company nor brought the details of the alleged loss to the notice of the bank. The appellant because of his own conduct is barred from seeking interference of the Court. The credit facility was granted against hypothecation of goods and the surveyors appointed did not accept the claim as the appellant had failed to produce any document in support of the alleged loss. The suit is a counter-blast to the suit of recovery filed by the respondent. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court vide Order dated 14th May, 1998, framed as many as 16 issues which read as under:- 1. "whether the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and Mr. J. S. Chhatwal a registered partner and whether the suit has been signed, verified and instituted by a competent person" 2. Whether defendant no. 2 was not obligated to get the hypothecated stocks and machinery insured" If so, its effect. 3. Whether the policy of insurance bearing No. 4000/01/10/021669 was taken out by defendant No. 1 in its name without reference to the plaintiff as alleged" If so, its effect. 4. Whether any devastating flood occurred during the night of 29 June 1981 and 30 june 1981 and resulted in loss to the plaintiff" If so, the extent thereof. 5. Whether the plaintiff lodged any claim under the policy of insurance with defendants 2 to 4" If so, to what extent" 6. Whether under the policy of insurance, the plaintiff was not obligated to lodge a claim with the insurance company or with defendant no. 2" 7. Whether defendant nos. 3 and 4 were intimated of the loss only on 24 December 1981 as alleged in the Written Statement" If so, its effect. 8. What is the effect of the policy of insurance being in the name of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2" 9. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action" 10. Whether there was no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendants no. 8. What is the effect of the policy of insurance being in the name of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2" 9. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action" 10. Whether there was no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendants no. 3 and 4" If not, to what effect" 11. Whether the suit is barred by limitation" 12. Whether a cover note/copy of the policy of insurance was delivered to the plaintiff by defendants No. 3 and 4" If so, its effect" 13. Whether defendant No. 5 is personally liable to any amount" 14. To what amount, if any, the plaintiff is entitled and from which of the defendants" 15. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest" If so, at what rate and for what period" 16. Relief" ( 3 ) THE appellant examined its managing partner who tendered his evidence as Ex. PA. As recorded in the judgment, ex-parte arguments were heard and finally vide judgment and decree dated 12th December, 2005, the total claim of the appellant was rejected by the Court and the suit was dismissed. The basic argument raised on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal is that the impugned judgment and decree does not specify the canons of judicial pronouncements. The evidence led by the appellant has not been discussed and, in fact, no reasons much less any plausible reasons have been recorded for rejecting the claim of the appellant. When this appeal came up for hearing before this Bench on 12th February, 2007, the Court had passed the following order:- "18 12. 02. 2007 present: Mr. K. K. Bhuchar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S. S. Panwar, Advocate, for the respondents no. 3 and 4. RFA No. 170/2006 and CM 4054/2006 as noticed in the order of the Registrar dated 28. 7. 2006, respondents no. 1 and 2 have been served but nobody was appearing on their behalf. Even today nobody is present on their behalf. They are ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte in these proceedings. Respondents no. 3 and 4 have already filed their reply to the application for stay. Records of the trial court have been received. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Judgment reserved. Even today nobody is present on their behalf. They are ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte in these proceedings. Respondents no. 3 and 4 have already filed their reply to the application for stay. Records of the trial court have been received. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Judgment reserved. SWATANTER KUMAR, J. H. R. MALHOTRA, J. February 12,2007 sk" ( 4 ) WE may notice here that the respondents in the present appeal were proceeded against ex-parte by the learned trial court vide its order dated 3rd december, 2001. Thus, the evidence led by the appellant remained unrebutted. The entire judgment of the trial court does not refer to any evidence, much less a critical analysis of the evidence, led by the appellant. In 9 pages of the judgment by the trial court, the facts and issues have been noticed and all the 16 issues have been answered by the trial court in the remaining 6 pages, without any proper appreciation of pleading of the parties, oral evidence led by the appellant and the documentary evidence placed on record in accordance with law. While discussing Issue No. 3, the trial court notices that an insurance policy was taken out by the bank not in the name of the appellant but the premium of the policy was being debited to the account of the appellant. PW-1 had examined himself along with the affidavit and relied upon the documents Ex. PW. 1/1 to Ex. PW. 1/20 and had also relied upon the documents which were filed by the respondents in the suit. What is the effect of the various documents produced by the appellant on the issues have not been referred to. In fact, why the statement of PW-1 cannot be relied upon or is not worthy of even consideration by learned trial court has nowhere been stated in the impugned judgment. It is expected of the trial court to recored its findings on each issues upon proper discussion and appreciation of the evidence produced before it. For example, the documents of the bank which were filed and had been referred to, including Ex. P/3 and Ex. PW. 1/6, refer to the loss suffered by the appellant. It is expected of the trial court to recored its findings on each issues upon proper discussion and appreciation of the evidence produced before it. For example, the documents of the bank which were filed and had been referred to, including Ex. P/3 and Ex. PW. 1/6, refer to the loss suffered by the appellant. According to the bank, the said stocks were duly insured under the policy and, in fact, the bank raised a grievance upon the insurance company that the claim was lodged five months back but no reply was received. Similar were the circumstances in relation to Ex. P/4. Ex. PW. 1/11 had given complete details in regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and even supporting bills, etc. , were placed on record. Whether the appellant was entitled to the claim/damages or not and what was the effect of the suit alleged to have been filed by the bank against the appellant, findings in that regard are conspicuous by their very absence in the impugned judgment. ( 5 ) WE do not consider it necessary for us to record findings on each issues because this is a fit case where the judgment should be set aside and matter remanded to the trial court for recording of its finding on each issues upon due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties with reference to the pleadings in the suit in accordance with law. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons afore-recorded, we allow this appeal partially, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court in its entirety and remand the matter to the trial court to be proceeded further by recording findings on each issues in accordance with law, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. ( 7 ) PARTIES are directed to appear before the trail Court on 2. 4. 2007.