S.N. Modi, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge Court No. 2, Jaipur City dated 31-7-1972 in a suit for money.
2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case. During the course of the arguments of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondents moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for allowing him to lead additional evidence in respect of the following documents:
(1) Postal receipt of letter dated 6-2-65 with acknowledgement due
(2) Postal receipt of letter dated 8-7-65
(3) Postal receipt of letter dated 12-3-66
(4) Two postal receipts of letters dated 18-10-68 with the envelopes bearing endorsement 'refused'
(5) Two postal receipts of notice dated 5-11-66 with envelopes bearing endorsement 'refused'
(6) Certificates of posting of letters dated 18-10-66 and 5-11-66
3. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that these documents could not be produced earlier during the course of the trial on account of vagueness of the pleadings and the issues.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant strongly opposes this application. I have scrutinized the documents and prima facie I am satisfied about their genuineness, f am also of the opinion that the production of these documents is essential for the just decision of this appeal, I therefore allow this application and admit these documents in evidence.
5. Both the learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the issues framed by the trial court are highly vague and some of the important issues which arose in this case were not at all framed. In my opinion the trial court has committed grave irregularity in proceeding to the final decision of the case without setting proper issues therein. I am further of the opinion that on account of omission to frame necessary issues both the parties are entitled to say that they have been prejudiced.
6. In the circumstances there is no other alternative but to remand the case for fresh decision on merits after reframing the issues. I accordingly frame the following issues in this suit on the pleadings of the parties-
(2) Whether the plaintiff made advances to the defendants as entered in the cash credit account maintained by the plaintiff and the defendants Firm acknowledged its liability to repay the amount on 8-1-65? (Onus on the pitf)
(3)(A) Whether the plaintiff called upon the defendants to repay the outstanding amount due to it by registered letters dated 6-2-65 8-7-65 and 12-3-66?
(B) Whether the letters were received by the defendant?
(C) Whether part of the pledged goods viz. glass sheets were sold by private sale on 4-4-1966 after service of due notice? (Onus on the pltf.)
4. (A) Whether the defendants were informed by the plaintiff vide letter dated 18-10-66 that an amount of Rs. 25431,42 was due from them after deducting the amount of Rs. 10,500/-?
(B) Whether the said letter was received by the defendants? (Onus on the plaintiff)
5. (A) Whether the remaining pledged goods were auctioned by the plaintiff for Rs. 10,100/- after giving notice to the defendants on 5-11-66?
(B) Whether this notice was served upon the defendants? (Onus on the plaintiff)
(6) Whether the value of the goods pledged by the defendants with the plaintiff was Rs. 80,000/- & the plaintiff did not sell the goods at a fair price and therefore, the defendants are not bound by such sale? (Onus on the defendant)
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The decree passed by the court below is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial court for fresh decision on merits after taking evidence on the issues framed above. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 8th March, 1976 on which date they will be at liberty to produce any further documentary evidence. The coats of this appeal snail abide the final result, The court fee paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant, The documents produced along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 shall be sent to the court below along with the record of the case as soon as possible.