JUDGMENT : H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. The present respondent Nos.1 to 4 in their capacity as plaintiffs, have instituted a suit against the present appellant and present respondent Nos.5 to 8 arraigning them as defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the Court of learned XVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH-12), (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in O.S.No.8819/1996, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from the defendants. 2. The summary of the case of the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that on 25.4.1991, in the morning, the Sub-Inspector of Gangammanagudi Police Station, directed Sri H.R. Rangahanumaiah, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4, who was a Police Constable, to work in the house of Assistant Commissioner of police. While the said deceased Rangahanumaiah was working in the house of Assistant Commissioner of Police and while cleaning the roof of the house and while getting down from the roof, fell down and subsequently succumbed to the injuries on 16.1.1992. Claim was made under the Group Insurance Scheme for settlement of an amount of Rs. 1 lakh by submitting a proposal on 23.6.1992 through the 3rd defendant, in whose police station, deceased was said to be working. The deceased was working as a Police Constable at the relevant point of time. The appellant-Insurance Company refuted the claim by contending that there is no privity of contract between the parties. It was thereafter the plaintiffs approached this Court by filing a writ petition in Writ Petition No.15392/1994. However, this Court directed the parties to get the adjudication of their rights before the competent Civil Court. Accordingly, the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants in O.S.No.8819/1996 in the trial Court. 3. The trial Court by its impugned judgment and decree dated 12.1.2007, decreed the suit with cost and held the plaintiffs as entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from defendant No.4 (appellant herein) with interest thereupon at 8% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation. It is challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.4, which is the Insurance Company, has preferred this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant in his brief arguments submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses. Moreover, no opportunity was given to defendant No.4 to lead its evidence. It is challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.4, which is the Insurance Company, has preferred this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant in his brief arguments submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses. Moreover, no opportunity was given to defendant No.4 to lead its evidence. On the contrary, in a hasty manner, the trial Court taking the evidence of defendant No.4 as not led, proceeded to pronounce the impugned judgment. As such, the appeal deserves to be remanded. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in his argument submitted that sufficient opportunities were given to the parties and no purpose would be served by remanding the matter. He further submitted that the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company is that there was no privity of contract between the deceased and the Insurance Company since it is alleged that the deceased was not on duty as on the date of the alleged incident. However, to establish the same, the Insurance Company has not produced any documents in its support, as such, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 8 in her arguments submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to produce that as on the date of the alleged incident, the deceased Rangahanumaiah was on duty as per the orders of his superior. As such, in the absence of any document to show that he was on duty, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 7. A perusal of the order sheet maintained by the trial Court go to show that on 24.11.2006, noticing that PW-2, a witness for the plaintiffs, has remained absent despite granting time for him to tender himself for cross-examination, the trial Court proceeded to hold that PW-2 was not available for his cross-examination from the defendants' side. With the said observation, the matter was posted to 18.12.2006 for the evidence of defendants. As already observed above, in the original suit, there were as many as five defendants. The present appellant was defendant No.4 therein who was seriously disputing the matter by filing its written statement. 8. On 18.12.2006, by observing that though counsel for defendant No.4 (appellant herein) was present, but, his party did not lead evidence, the trial Court proceeded to hold that defendant No.4 has no evidence from its side. The present appellant was defendant No.4 therein who was seriously disputing the matter by filing its written statement. 8. On 18.12.2006, by observing that though counsel for defendant No.4 (appellant herein) was present, but, his party did not lead evidence, the trial Court proceeded to hold that defendant No.4 has no evidence from its side. The matter was thereafter posted to 4.1.2007 for arguments. 9. On 4.1.2007, the defendant No.4 (appellant herein) filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'CPC'), seeking to recall the order dated 18.12.2006, on which day, its evidence was taken as not led. The said application was not considered on the said day. The recording in the order sheet on the very same day i.e., on 4.1.2007, shows that the opponents to the said application have submitted their 'no objection' to allow the said application, despite which, said application was kept pending. The matter was adjourned to 12.1.2007 for passing orders on IA. filed by the defendant No.4 under Section 151 of CPC and for orders in the main suit, if necessary. 10. On 12.1.2007, the trial Court without passing any orders on pending IA. under Section 151 of CPC, filed by the defendant No.4, directly proceeded to pronounce the judgment on the main suit itself. Even in the main suit, there is no mentioning about the orders made if any on the said pending IA. filed under Section 151 of CPC. The said judgment was pronounced on 12.1.2007, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, holding the defendant No.4 as liable. 11. The above proceedings in the trial Court makes it very clear that after closing the evidence from the plaintiffs' side, no sufficient opportunities were given to the defendants and more particularly, to defendant No.4 before it for leading its evidence. On 18.12.2006, despite presence of the learned counsel for defendant No.4 and also the party, the trial Court proceeded to take that defendant No.4 as not led its evidence and posted the matter for arguments. Even thereafter, when defendant No.4 made an application on 4.1.2007, seeking to recall its previous order dated 18.12.2006 and despite the opponents to the said application submitting their 'no objection', the trial Court for the reasons best known to it, kept the said application pending and proceeded to pass the judgment itself on 12.1.2007 in the main suit. Even thereafter, when defendant No.4 made an application on 4.1.2007, seeking to recall its previous order dated 18.12.2006 and despite the opponents to the said application submitting their 'no objection', the trial Court for the reasons best known to it, kept the said application pending and proceeded to pass the judgment itself on 12.1.2007 in the main suit. As such, without disposing of the IA. filed by defendant No.4 under Section 151 of CPC, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. Passing of an order on the merits of the said IA. filed by defendant No.4 under Section 151 of CPC was very much necessary and essential since the said IA. was for recalling the earlier order of the trial Court dated 18.12.2006 and giving an opportunity to defendant No.4 to lead its evidence. 12. Thus, in the absence of passing any order on the said IA. and the trial Court directly proceeding to pronounce its judgment, has resulted in denying an opportunity to defendant No.4 to lead its evidence, for which act of leading of evidence, the defendant No.4 had a right in the trial Court. Therefore, any judgment passed denying and depriving for no sufficient reasons a contesting party of his right to lead his evidence is nothing, but, a denial of natural justice to him. As such, the judgment under appeal deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER The Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree dated 12.1.2007, passed by the learned XVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-12), in O.S.No.8819/1996, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court, with a direction to pass its orders on the pending IA. filed under Section 151 of CPC and then proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the original suit is of the year 1996, as such, one of the old suit and that too, for compensation with respect to the deceased person by his alleged legal representatives, the original suit deserves to be disposed of at the earliest by the trial Court. Considering the fact that the original suit is of the year 1996, as such, one of the old suit and that too, for compensation with respect to the deceased person by his alleged legal representatives, the original suit deserves to be disposed of at the earliest by the trial Court. In that direction, both parties herein are directed to appear before the trial Court without waiting for fresh notice or summons from it on 24.06.2019, at 11.00 a.m. and seek further instructions from the trial Court. It is appreciated that the trial Court if disposes of the main suit at the earliest thereafter within three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it i.e., on 24.06.2019. The refund of the Court fee to the appellant would be in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment along with lower Court records to the lower Court without delay.