Judgment K.C.Puri, J. 1. Bhagwan Dass son of Kishan Chand has filed a suit on behalf of his son Romesh Chander, ex Constable. It is alleged that Romesh Chander was of un-sound mind. Romesh Chander joined the police department in January, 1977 and at that time, he was mentally and physically fit. During the course of employment, he developed disease of un-soundness of mind. Romesh Chander was dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police vide order dated 19.8.1982 on the ground of wilful absence. Later on, by way of amendment, order dated 29.11.1982 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range dismissing the appeal of Romesh Chander and order dated 17.3.1983 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh were also challenged. 2. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner and has pleaded that fair and impartial inquiry has been conducted. The following issues were framed by the trial Court; 1. Whether Romesh Chander, Ex. Constable is of un-sound mind and contracted/developed disease during the course of his employment? OPP. 2. Whether the order of dismissal is wrong and is not maintainable? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file suit on behalf of Romesh Chander? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPP. 5. Whether valid notice Under Section 80 C.P.C has been served upon the defendants? OPP. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 7. Relief. 3. The learned trial Court returned finding on issue No. 1 partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly against the plaintiff. However, issue Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff. Issue Nos. 5 and 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. In view of findings on issue Nos. 1 to 4, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree 11.1.1985. 4. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. Shri M.L.Singhal, the then Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.1985 accepted the appeal and held that no proper inquiry was conducted. 5. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above-said judgment and decree, the State of Punjab has filed the present appeal. 6. During the pendency of appeal, the plaintiff-respondent moved an application on 17.9.1999 for amendment to array Romesh Chander as respondent No. 2. 7. 5. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above-said judgment and decree, the State of Punjab has filed the present appeal. 6. During the pendency of appeal, the plaintiff-respondent moved an application on 17.9.1999 for amendment to array Romesh Chander as respondent No. 2. 7. The trial Court has framed a specific issue whether the plaintiff is competent to file the suit on behalf of Romesh Chander. The findings on that issue were returned against Bhagwan Dass. However, from the perusal of judgment of first Appellate Court, it is revealed that the learned first Appellate Court has not even discussed about that issue. The case of Bhagwan Dass was that Romesh Chander was of unsound mind, but, that plea was not accepted by the trial Court. The first Appellate Court has simply given a finding that the inquiry was not proper, without discussing whether Bhagwan Dass was competent to file the suit on behalf of Romesh Chander. So, the judgment of first Appellate Court suffers from legal infirmity and has to be set aside. 8. Therefore, the appeal is accepted. The judgment and decree of first Appellate Court stand set aside and the case is remanded back to the first Appellate Court to decide whether Bhagwan Dass was competent to file suit on behalf of Romesh Chander. The plaintiff is at liberty to file application for amendment of title. The parties are directed to appear before the first Appellate Court on 1.4.2008. 9. Since it is an old case, the first Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. 10. Decree sheet be prepared. Files of the Courts below be sent back after due compliance. 11. This file be consigned to the Record Room.