Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. D Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant and Mr. MZ Ahmed, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. DSD Virdi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 2. This is the second time the appellant approached this Court by filing First appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Shillong in Money Suit No. 7(H) of 2000. 3. This First appeal has a chequered history. The respondent/plaintiff initially filed a Title Suit being TS No. 12(T) 1997 in the Court of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong on 18.06.1997 against the present appellant/defendant and the said Title Suit was returned to the respondent/plaintiff on 12.04.2000 for filing before the competent Court. Accordingly, the present respondent/plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 7(H) 2000 in the Court of Assistant District Judge at Shillong. The appellant/defendant also filed the written statement. 4. Learned trial court on careful perusal of the respective pleadings of the parties i.e. the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant, framed as many as 14 issues: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action to file the suit? 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiff has filed any written protest or extension of time for the execution of the work due to alteration, addition, deviation and modification of original plan by defendant? 5. Whether the drawings/specifications etc. for the entire work was submitted at the time of signing the contract agreement? 6. Whether the modifications/alterations made during the executions of works are of minor or major in nature? 7. Whether the plaintiff had not (sic) signed the measurement book inspite of repeated requests/intimations to her by the defendant? 8. Whether the failure to complete the works within the stipulated period is solely attributable to the plaintiff? 9. Whether the works carried out by the plaintiff is substandard and defective. If so, whether the defendant can impose penalty on the plaintiff? 10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any payment from the defendant. If not, whether the plaintiff is barred by the condition of contract agreement and liable to pay to defendant? 11. 9. Whether the works carried out by the plaintiff is substandard and defective. If so, whether the defendant can impose penalty on the plaintiff? 10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any payment from the defendant. If not, whether the plaintiff is barred by the condition of contract agreement and liable to pay to defendant? 11. Whether the execution of the work by the plaintiff the building was handed over to the CRPF during the SAARC meeting held at Shillong and to the Electrical contractor by the defendant. If so, who is to bear the cost of damages? 12. Whether the memorandum of handing over and taking over possession of the building after its completion been drawn and signed by both parties? 13. Whether the defendant has not legally acknowledged the claim of the plaintiff in the memorandum of understanding which caused the plaintiff to withdraw the case from the court for settlement and payment of her claim and whether the defendant has fulfilled the conditions laid down in the memorandum of understanding? 14. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to? Learned trial court after full length trial passed the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2003 in Money Suit No. 7(H) 2000. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 13.06.2003, the present appellant/defendant preferred the first appeal being RFA No. 14 of 2004 in the erstwhile Gauhati High Court. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 13.06.2003 passed in MS No. 7(H) 2000 and remand the record to the learned trial court with a direction to decide the issue as indicated as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. In the said judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 22.11.2007 passed in RFA No. 14 of 2007, liberty had been granted to the trial court to decide other issues as involved therein, if it is deemed fit and proper after hearing the parties. 6. In the said judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 22.11.2007 passed in RFA No. 14 of 2007, liberty had been granted to the trial court to decide other issues as involved therein, if it is deemed fit and proper after hearing the parties. 6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the said judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 22.11.2007 passed in RFA No. 14 of 2007 and of the view that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court made a clear-cut finding in the judgment and order that the decision of the trial court for all the issues are cryptic. Keeping in view of the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 22.11.2007 passed in RFA No. 14 of 2007, this Court also carefully perused the judgment of the trial court dated 13.06.2003 passed in MS No. 7(H) 2000 comprising of about 45 pages and on such careful perusal, it is clear that the major parts of the judgment and order are only quotation of plaint and written statement of the plaintiff and defendant. The findings on the issues in the judgment and order dated 13.06.2003 are based on no reasons in other words, there was no effective consideration of the evidence of both the parties. For easy reference, the finding portions of the trial court in the judgment and order dated 13.06.2003 are quoted hereunder: "From my discussion and decision of the issues above, I find that the claim of the plaintiff for civil and sanitary installation and internal water supply work are very much higher than the amount mentioned in the tender value. I feel the amount should not exceed the tender value basing from the work executed by the plaintiff. Hence, the claim for civil works is allowed to Rs. 19,45,000.60p and Rs. 2,75,000.21p for sanitary installation and internal water supply works, only. With regards to the extra/additional work, the works are major in nature as decided in Issue No. 6. The defendant is also liable to bear the cost of damages to the building due to occupation of the CRPF during the SAARC meeting and the electrical works done by the contractor decided in Issue No. 11. I accordingly allowed Rs. 4,19,462.19p out of the total claim of the plaintiff in respect of modification, alteration and extra work which I feel it just and reasonable. I accordingly allowed Rs. 4,19,462.19p out of the total claim of the plaintiff in respect of modification, alteration and extra work which I feel it just and reasonable. In addition to the above, the plaintiff is also entitled to withdraw the security deposits kept for the above two items of works for Rs. 97,500/- and Rs. 13,500/- respectively. After deducting the advance payment made by the defendant for Rs. 14,00,000/- and the amount paid to the plaintiff due to Hon'ble High Court's Order of Rs. 2,76,350/-, the total claim of plaintiff comes to Rs. 10,74,113/- which she is hereby entitled to from the defendant. The said amount of Rs. 10,74,113/- if paid at the time of completion of the works, the same would have been multiplied if kept in deposit before any commercialized Bank. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest on this amount from that date. ORDER The suit is accordingly decreed on contest for: a) a declaration that the letter No. MTDC/TB/CS/42/85/45, dt. 18.11.86 imposing a penalty of Rs. 31,350/-(Rupees Thirty One Thousand three hundred fifty) only on the plaintiff in respect of sanitary fitting and Internal water supply work is illegal and void. b) a declaration that letter No. MTDC/TB/CS/42/85/46, dated 18.11.86 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,94,740/- (Rupees one lac ninety four thousand seven hundred forty) only on the plaintiff in respect of civil work is illegal and void. c) a declaration that the letter No. MTDC/TB/CS/85/47, dated 19.11.86 alleging the works executed by the plaintiff to be of low quality, substandard and technically defective is illegal and void. d) a decree of Rs. 10,74,113/- with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from the date of handing and taking over the building i.e. on 3.10.1986 till date of the decree and also for costs of the suit. The defendant is directed to pay the decreetal amount within a period of 3(three) months from the date of the decree failing which the penal interest will run @ 15% p.a. till realization. The case is disposed of. Prepare the decree accordingly. On perusal of the findings portion of the issues in the judgment and order dated 13.06.2003, it is clear that there is no proper appreciation of the evidence of the parties and also no reasons for coming to the findings which have been quoted above. The case is disposed of. Prepare the decree accordingly. On perusal of the findings portion of the issues in the judgment and order dated 13.06.2003, it is clear that there is no proper appreciation of the evidence of the parties and also no reasons for coming to the findings which have been quoted above. Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC clearly provides that: In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefore, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issue is sufficient for the decision of the suit. On perusal of Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC it is clear that for the finding or decision on the issues there should be reasons. As stated above, learned trial court while making the findings in the judgment and order dated 13.06.2003 no proper reason had been given. Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC further provides that the judgment of the appellate court shall be in writing and shall state the reason for decision. A conjoint reading of Order XX Rule 5 and Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC, it is clear that there should be reasons for decision in the judgment and order of the trial court as well as in the judgment and order of the appellate court. 7. After the case was remanded, the learned trial court i.e. Assistant District Judge, Shillong passed the judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 for deciding Issue No. 3 and there was no finding for other issues. It is an admitted fact of the parties that the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 passed in RFA No. 14 of 2003 set aside the judgment and order of the trial court dated 13.06.2003 passed in MS No. &(H)2000. Learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 stated that "the case is decreed afresh". But, it is clear from the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 that the other issues had not been decided; now the question is what are the decisions with reasons for other issues ? Learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 stated that "the case is decreed afresh". But, it is clear from the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 that the other issues had not been decided; now the question is what are the decisions with reasons for other issues ? With reference to judgment and order dated 13.06.2003, this Court had already made an observation in judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 that all the issues are not properly decided by giving reasons by the trial court in the judgment and order dated 13.06.2003. 8. In the course of hearing the present appeal, learned counsel appearing for the parties unanimously submitted that the trial court, in the judgment and order dated 13.06.2003 and the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013, had not effectively decided all the issues by giving reasons in compliance with the Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC. This Court being the first appellate court has power and jurisdiction of the trial court. 9. As all the issues are not decided by the trial court by giving reasons this Court is of the considered view that the case is required to be remanded to the trial court with a direction to decide all the issues afresh by giving reasons as required under Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC. 10. Learned counsel for the parties unanimously submitted that the MS No. 7(H) 2000 is required to be decided afresh by the trial court. 11. Mr. MZ Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff by drawing attention of this Court to the Order-sheet of MS No. 7(H) 2000 contended that the delay in disposal of the MS 7(H) 2000 was because of the non-appearance of the appellant/defendant before the trial court. 12. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant made an assurance before the Court that the defendant would appear before the court below for speedy disposal of MS No. 7(H) 2000, if remanded for rehearing, on the pleadings of the parties, statement of witnesses, PWs and DWs and exhibited documents. 13. 12. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant made an assurance before the Court that the defendant would appear before the court below for speedy disposal of MS No. 7(H) 2000, if remanded for rehearing, on the pleadings of the parties, statement of witnesses, PWs and DWs and exhibited documents. 13. In the above factual backdrop, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.04.2013 is hereby set aside so as to enable the court below for a fresh final hearing of MS 7(H) 2000 (re-hearing of the final arguments of the parties), on the pleadings of the parties, statement of witnesses, PWs and DWs and exhibited documents. Accordingly, MS No. 7(H) 2000 is remitted to the trial court for a fresh final hearing in the manner indicated above and pass the judgment and decree within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 26.09.2014. This Court also recorded the assurance made by Mr. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for appellant/defendant before this Court that the appellant/defendant would appear before the court below for a speedy disposal of MS No. 7(H) 2000 as directed above. It is also made clear that the learned trial court should be very strict in granting the prayer for adjournment from either of the parties. 14. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The Registry is directed to send LCR to the trial court forthwith.