Mallappa Ramappa Naik and others vs Ittappa Ramappa Banti @ Heggani and others. Regular Second Appeal 1811/2005 decided on 14 October 2020. Justice V. Shrishananda.
Judgment Link: (High Court server down. Will update link later. )
Relevant Paragraphs: 13. Order XX Rule 5 CPC contemplates a mandatory duty on Trial Court to answer all issues framed in a suit. Non answering of all issues results in vitiating the entire judgment subject to exception carved out in Order XIV Rule 2 CPC.
14. The term “issue” in a civil case means a disputed question relating to rival contentions in a suit. It is the focal point of disagreement, argument or decision. Needless to emphasise that framing of appropriate issue/s serves the laudable object of narrowing the conflict in a succinct manner. Scheme of Civil Procedure Code, contemplates that the court must thereafter proceed with the trial based on the issues and pronounce its judgment by answering all the issues.
17. …what constitutes a judgment is no longer res integra. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.V. Rami Reddi v. Prema, reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1534. The relevant portion of the said judgment is culled out hereunder:
9. The ultimate question is whether in the instant case the judgment has been validly delivered? If it is a mere procedural irregularity and the Judge concerned had not signed the judgment, then the judgment thus rendered cannot be invalidated. Order XX Rule 1 CPC postulates that after the case has been heard, the court hearing the same shall pronounce the judgment in open court by dictation to the shorthand writer, wherever it is permissible. It bears the date on which it is pronounced. The date of the judgment is never altered by the date on which the signature has been put subsequently. The mere fact that a major portion has been dictated by the learned Judge in the judgment already dictated, will not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the judgment had been delivered.
10. In Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh Vs. Harendra Kumar Banerjee and Anr. (AIR 1969 SC 1167), it was inter-alia held as follows (at Para 6):
“Trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to achieve, according to law and the procedure of the Court, a judicial determination between the contesting parties of the matter in controversy. Opportunity to the parties interested in the dispute to present their respective cases on question of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence tendered by the parties and adjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon a finding on the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a judicial trial. In a judicial trial, the judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest; it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just. It is unfortunate that the learned Trial Judge has recorded no reasons in support of his conclusion, and the High Court in appeal merely recorded that they thought that the plaintiff had sufficiently proved the case in the plant.”
11.The declaration by a Judge of his intention of what his `judgment’ is going to be, or a declaration of his intention of what final result it is going to embody, is not a judgment until he had crystallized his intentions into a formal shape and pronounced it in open court as the final expression of his mind.
12. The CPC does not envisage the writing of a judgment after deciding the case by an oral judgment and it must not be resorted to and it would be against public policy to ascertain by evidence alone what the `judgment’ of the Court was, where the final result was announced orally but the `judgment’, as defined in the CPC embodying a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision, was finalized later on.
13. Section 2(9) of the CPC defines a “judgment” to mean the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. “There is yet another infirmity in the case which relates to the “judgment” passed by the single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench.
“Judgment” as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20 Rule 4(2) which says that a judgment “shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision”. It should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment.”
15. Undisputedly, the Trial Judge had not completed the judgment before he delivered his decision. That being so, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. What the High Court has directed is to hear only the arguments afresh. While dismissing the appeal, we direct that the arguments shall be heard afresh and the Trial Court shall deliver its judgment as early as practicable, preferably within three months from today. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the Trial Court on 05.03.2008 so that the date for arguments can be fixed.”
18. It is also necessary to place reliance on the decision of this court reported in AIR 2001 Kant 120, in the case of Lakshmamma vs Kamalamma And Others, where in it was held as under:
“17. The Trial Court also erred in not considering and deciding issue Nos. (2) to (5). Under Order 20, Rule 5 it is mandatory that the Court shall state its finding or decision with reasons thereof upon each separate issue and all the distinct issues have to be answered by the finding supported by reasons. The exceptional situation is provided under Order 14, Rule 2 where an issue relating to the jurisdiction or a bar to a suit created by any law for the time arises for determination and if Court can once and for all dispose of the case with reference to the said issues only. In such a situation, the Court is entitled to postpone the settlement of other issues only after that issue has been determined and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on the said preliminary issues. In the instant case, issue No. (1) obviously cannot be considered as one covered by the purview of Order 14, Rule 2.”
19. On careful perusal of the above statutory provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5 CPC Trial Court after remand order … was duty bound answer all issues raised in the suit while passing the judgment…. Non-recording of the findings on the remaining issues by the Trial Court, is totally erroneous and cannot be countenanced in the eye of law and can be safely termed as perverse.
20. Further, on applying legal principles enunciated in Rami Reddy Supra to the case on hand, non recording of finding on remaining issues by Trial Court other than additional Issue Nos.4 and 5, the judgment cannot be termed as a judgment in the eye of law and it is incomplete judgment.
29. Therefore, this Court has no option, but to set aside the judgment and decree so passed by Trial Court and confirmed by first appellate court and remand the matter for decision afresh by hearing the arguments on all issues as recording of evidence is concluded.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 