Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ezlinda Fernandes, filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents, including Patrociano Cabral, Vinci Cabral, and the State of Goa, alleging that respondent no.1 threatened to demolish a boundary wall repaired by the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied any illegal construction or encroachment on a public lane. The defendants contested the suit, claiming the plaintiff's act caused hardship to the public. The trial court settled nine issues for consideration but disposed of them in a single page without providing any reasoning or demonstrating application of mind. The High Court, hearing the first appeal, observed that the judgment was a classic example of how judgments should not be written. Without further comments on merits, the court held it a fit case to remand the matter to the trial court for fresh adjudication. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial judge to hear the matter afresh, giving both sides an opportunity to lead evidence and to write a judgment showing proper application of mind and adherence to relevant legal principles. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Judgment Writing - Duty to Give Reasons - The trial court's judgment was set aside as it dealt with nine issues in one page without any reasoning or application of mind, making it a classic example of how judgments should not be written - Held that a judgment must reflect the judge's reasoning and application of mind (Paras 3-4). B) Civil Procedure - Remand - Retrial - Where the trial court's judgment is devoid of reasoning, the appellate court may remand the matter for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity to both sides to lead evidence - Held that the matter be remanded to the trial court for retrial (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's judgment was legally sustainable when it failed to provide reasoning or show application of mind while decreeing the suit.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order of the trial court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for retrial. The trial judge is directed to hear the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both sides to lead evidence and to adjudicate the dispute in a proper manner adhering to the principles of law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Judgment must show application of mind
- Remand for retrial when judgment lacks reasoning
