Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1151 (AP)

V. Nagalakshmi v. Seetharama Finance

2001-10-01

P.S.NARAYANA

body2001
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the learned counsel. ( 2 ) SRI G. Narender Raj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner had raised a short, but an interesting question of law that even if a judgment is an ex parte judgment, it must be in conformity with the definition of judgment within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (in short referred as the code ). ( 3 ) THIS civil revision petition is tiled by the revision petitioner-defendant in s. C. No. 393 of 2000 dated 18-9-2000 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, Small causes Court, Hyderabad. The said judgment was made on 19-9-2000 in the following terms: "proof affidavit filed Exs. A1 to A3 marked suit claim is decreed against all defendants for Rs. 6,320. 00 (Rupees six thousand three hundred and twenty only) with costs. Future interest is awarded at 6% per annum from the date of the suit to the date of the realisation. " ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel contended that the impugned judgment is not a judgment in the eye of law, inasmuch as it is not in conformity with Section 2 (9) of the code. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the respondent/plaintiff claims to be partnership firm and whether it is a registered firm or not or whether the suit is maintainable or not is an important question. Apart from it whether a licence had been obtained in respect of this loan under A. P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders act, 1349-Fasli or not also is yet another question. The learned Counsel had also contended that the impugned judgment does not satisfy any of the requirements of the judgment and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the decisions of the Apex court in Balraj Toneja v. Sunil Madan, 1999 AIR SCW 3345 and M/s. Shalimar cinema v. Bhasin Film Corporation, air 1987 SC 2081 . ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent contended that it is only a judgment delivered ex parte and in such a matter one cannot expect all the details to be incorporated and the question of considering all these aspects will arise only when a written statement is filed by the defendant in the suit and the averments in the plaint are specifically denied. ( 6 ) THE impugned judgment was delivered by the Court below on the strength of filing a proof affidavit and by marking exs. A1 to A3. No doubt, the normal practice adopted by the Courts had been followed in this matter also. ( 7 ) THIS revision petition is filed under section 12 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) small Causes Courts Act, 1330-F and section 12 of the said Act dealing with the revisional powers of the High Court specifies that the High Court may call for and inspect any file of a Court of Small causes and pass such order thereon as it thinks fit. The language of Section 12 of the said Act appears to be different from the language employed in Section 25 of the provisional Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. However, Section 2 (9) of the Code defines judgment as "judgment" means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order". Order XX, Rule 4 (1) of the Code deals with judgment of Small causes Courts and the provision reads: " (1) Judgment of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon". ( 8 ) NO doubt, Order XX, Rule 4 (2) of the Code dealing with the judgments of the other Courts says that the judgments of the other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. ( 9 ) NOW, it has to be looked into whether this judgment made ex parte in a small cause suit is in conformity with the Order 20, Rule 4 (1) of the Code. In m/s. Shalimar Cinema case (supra), at paragraph 3, the Apex Court observed: "we think it necessary to add that no action of the Court or its officers should be such as to give rise to the criticism that it was done in an indifferent or casual way. " no doubt, the Apex Court made this observation in view of the facts of that particular case. " no doubt, the Apex Court made this observation in view of the facts of that particular case. ( 10 ) IN Balraj Taneja case (supra), it was, no doubt, held that "whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex parte and is ultimately decided as an ex parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order 8, rule 10, the Court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved". ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel had also placed strong reliance in this decision and contended that this judgment though made ex parts is not in conformity with the provisions of the Code. I have already pointed out the difference in the language between Order XX, Rule 4 (2) of the Code and Order XX, Rule 4 (1) dealing with the judgment of a Small Causes Court specifies that such judgment need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon. When the impugned judgment is looked into, the Court has to arrive at an unavoidable conclusion that it is not in accordance with Section 2 (9) read with Order XX, Rule 4 (1) of the Code. When it is not in conformity with the aforesaid provisions, it cannot be said to be a judgment in the eye of law. ( 12 ) IN Dineshwar Prasad Bakshi v. Parmeshwar Prasad Sinha, AIR 1989 pat. 139 , it was held that even a judgment pronounced under Order VIII, Rule 10 must satisfy the requirements of "judgment" as defined in Section 2 (9) of the Code. ( 13 ) IN Thippaiah v. Kurt Obiah, ILR (1980) 2 Kam. 1028, it was held that the court must state grounds for its conclusion in the judgment in conformity with the provisions of Section 2 (9) of the Code. ( 14 ) I am conscious of the fact that if the Courts are expected to write judgments in detail in such cases of ex parte nature, it will consume sufficient time. 1028, it was held that the court must state grounds for its conclusion in the judgment in conformity with the provisions of Section 2 (9) of the Code. ( 14 ) I am conscious of the fact that if the Courts are expected to write judgments in detail in such cases of ex parte nature, it will consume sufficient time. But, however, at the same time, the Courts are expected to apply their mind to the facts of the case, matters in controversy, though the opposite party had not made appearance, even while making ex parte judgments of this nature, it is better to set out the facts also in brief and then make a judgment in accordance with the provisions of the code, specified supra. ( 15 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and, however, in the facts of the case, it is a fit matter to go back to the Court below again for the purpose of deciding the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY the civil revision petition is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Chief judge, Small Causes Court, City Civil Court, hyderabad in SC No. 393 of 2000 dated 18-9-2000 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below to make judgment in accordance with the provisions of the Code. No costs.