Case Note & Summary
The appellant, who was the defendant in the original suit, challenged the judgment and decree dated 23 June 2014 passed by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 829/2006. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking declaration and mandatory injunction regarding suit schedule property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit without granting any relief to either party. The appellant contended that the Trial Court, though framed several issues casting burden on both parties, did not discuss the documentary or oral evidence tendered by either side, nor did it assign any reasons for its findings. The High Court examined the judgment and found that the Trial Court had not whispered about the evidence or pleadings, and had passed a cryptic order without proper reasoning. The Court held that such a judgment is unsustainable in law, as it violates the requirement under Order 20 Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates that judgments in suits shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal, directing the Trial Court to give an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence and then pass a reasoned judgment in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed in part, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Judgment - Reasons - Order 20 Rule 4(2) CPC - The Trial Court framed issues but did not discuss the documentary or oral evidence tendered by the parties, nor did it assign reasons for its findings - Held that such a judgment is unsustainable and liable to be set aside, with a direction for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court's judgment is sustainable when it fails to discuss evidence and assign reasons on the issues framed.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.6.2014 in O.S.829/2006 and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. The Trial Court was directed to give an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence and then pass a reasoned judgment in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed in part, with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Duty of trial court to assign reasons
- Order 20 Rule 4(2) CPC
- Remand for fresh disposal
- Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction
