SUSHEELA G. ULLAL v. N. R. D. RANGAPPA — 1987 DIGILAW 152 (KAR)

NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) SRI S. V. Raghavachar, Senior Counsel is appearing on behalf of the respondent in response to the emergent Notice directed to be issued as per order dated 6-3-1987. They are heard, and the appeal is admitted. ( 2 ) BOTH the Counsel requested that the question involved in this appeal is one of law and it lies within a small ambit and therefore, the appeal be heard for final disposal. Hence this appeal is heard on merits. ( 3 ) PLAINTIFF in 0. S. No. 2685/85 on the file of the XIII Additional City civil Judge, Bangalore City is the appellant, as the suit came to be dismissed by the Judgment dated 29-8-1986 on the ground that the same was not maintainable as there was no jurisdiction in the Lower Court. ( 4 ) THE facts are that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Defendant is the tenant. ( 5 ) THE facts relied upon by the plaintiff are : the defendant is a tenant of the entire premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 650/ -. Defendant committed default plaintiff terminated the tenancy by issuing a legal and valid notice, as the defendant was in arrears of rent. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to possession and arrears of rent to the tune of rs. 5,200/ -. Further facts averred by the plaintiff are that the defendant had got inserted beams in the Walls of the suit schedule property in order to provide support to a neighbouring structure and was therefore, liable to make good for the damages and also to remove the same. Hence, he prayed mainly for injunction against the defendant and for comages. ( 6 ) DEFENDANT contended that tha suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He was not a tenant of the entire suit schedule property and lastly that he was not liable to any damages and so on. ( 7 ) AS many as 14 issues were raised. They are as follows :- 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is the tenant of the entire premises (including the portion on the 1st floor) described in the plaint schedule ? or 2. Whether the defendant proves that the firm Chamundi Mining and mineral Industries is the tenant of the portion in the first floor specified in the plaint-schedule ? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is the tenant of the entire premises (including the portion on the 1st floor) described in the plaint schedule ? or 2. Whether the defendant proves that the firm Chamundi Mining and mineral Industries is the tenant of the portion in the first floor specified in the plaint-schedule ? 3. What is the monthly rent payable by the defendant in respect of the lease-hold ? 4. Whether the defendant had kept the rent in arrears ? 5. If so, whether Rs. 5,200/- was due, as claimed in para 8 of the plaint, as on the date of the suit ? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages, for use and occupation for April and May 1978 ? 7. If so whether she is entitled to rs. 2. 600/- in this behalf ? ( 8 ) WHETHER the plaintiff proves that the defendant has done structural alterations, as pleaded in para 5 of the Plaint ? ( 9 ) IS the plaintiff entitled to the permanent injunction sought for ? 10 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the plaint-schedule property ejecting the defendant ? 11. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary party ? 12. Is the plaintiff entitled to interest on the arrears of rent claimed ? 13. All the relief in the suit property valued and whether the Court fee paid thereon is sufficient ? 14. To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled ? 8. The impugned judgment discloses that by 29-8-1986 the date of the impugned judgment evidence had been led in and the case was at the stsge of final arguments and at that stage the following issue was raised. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in this Court? 9. The trial Court has answered this issue against the plaintiff by following the decision in Padmanabharao v state of Karnataka - I. L. R. 1986 Karnataka, page 2480. It has not at all proceeded to hear the arguments and record its findings on any of the 13 issues. ( 10 ) ORDER XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it stands amended by Act 104 of 19/6, has split up the earlier Rule 2 to two sub Rules and they read as follows : -"2. It has not at all proceeded to hear the arguments and record its findings on any of the 13 issues. ( 10 ) ORDER XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it stands amended by Act 104 of 19/6, has split up the earlier Rule 2 to two sub Rules and they read as follows : -"2. COURT TO PRONOUNCE judgement ON ALL ISSUES : (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to - (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fite postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. "a plain reading of this Rule shows that the Court is mandatorily required to pronounce judgment on all issues subject to what is contained in Sub-Rule (2 ). In Vasudeva v Ganapathi - 1974 (2) Kar. L. J. 447, this Court has held that in the absence of specific application for trial of jurisdiction issue as preliminary issue, trial of entire suit is not vitiated. When there was no order directing the present issue to be tried as a preliminary issue, the Court was, in view of the plain provision of Order XIV Rule 2, bound to pronounce judgment on all the issues. It has failed to do so. ( 11 ) A perusal of the issues shows that even if it is held that the Court had no jurisdiction, that would relate to the relief of possession only. This fact goes further to emphasise that the trial Court ought to have pronounced its judgment on all the issues and mete out justice to the parties. It has failed to do so. Therefore, the trial Court has to be called upon to do so. ( 12 ) IN the result this appeal is allowed. This fact goes further to emphasise that the trial Court ought to have pronounced its judgment on all the issues and mete out justice to the parties. It has failed to do so. Therefore, the trial Court has to be called upon to do so. ( 12 ) IN the result this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 29-8-1986 passed by the XIII Additional city Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O. S. No. 2685 of 1980, are set aside. The suit is remanded to the same Court with a direction to the Court that the arguments should be heard on all the issues and judgment should be pronounced on all the issues, including the issue raised in regard to the maintainability, and the suit be disposed of. No orders as to costs. Appellant is entitled to refund of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. Appeal is allowed. --- *** --- .