Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 283 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Liaq Ram

2014-03-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A.C.J. (Oral) These two Original Side Appeals ensued from a common judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge, in Civil Suit No. 76/2001, dated 7.10.2010, and involve common question of law and fact, as such, taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. 2. It appears that Civil Suit No. 76/2001, titled Liaq Ram & others versus State of H.P. & another, came to be decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 7.10.201 0, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiffs was partly decreed and an amount of ! 5,19,752/- came to be awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, for short “the impugned judgment”. 3.Both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed these two separate Original Side Appeals, since they were dissatisfied with the judicial blow delivered by the learned Single Judge. 4.We have gone through the impugned judgment and the record. 5.The plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery of !15,08,082/- alongwith interests on the grounds taken in the memo of plaint. 6.Defendants-State have filed written statement to the plaint and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover `30,628/- from the defendants on account of loss and damage caused by the defendants to crops and grass of suit land due to construction of road known as “Shakeen Dhar-Alloti Road” as alleged in sub-para (1) of para 6 of the plaint? ...OPP 2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover ‘3,08,610/- from the defendants on account of loss, destruction and damage caused to fruit bearing apple, trees, apricot trees, peach trees due to construction of road known as “Dhar-Alloti Road” as alleged in sub-para (ii) of para 6 of the plaint? ...OPP 3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover ‘5,03,4 19/- from the defendants as compensation for damage caused to the suit land, house and field etc. by the defendants and restoring the suit property to its original position as alleged in sub-para (iii) of para 6 of the plaint? ....OPP4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the amounts mentioned above as claimed in sub-para (iv) of para 6 of the plaint, if so, at what rate?...OPP5.Whether the suit is not maintainable nor competent, as alleged? ...OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff have no locus standi to file the present suit? ....OPP4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the amounts mentioned above as claimed in sub-para (iv) of para 6 of the plaint, if so, at what rate?...OPP5.Whether the suit is not maintainable nor competent, as alleged? ...OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff have no locus standi to file the present suit? ...OPD 7.Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present suit due to their own acts, deeds and conduct? ...OPD 8.Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct value of the suit? ...OPD 9.Whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay exemplary cost under Section 35(a) of the C.P.C.?...OPD 10.Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? ...OPD 11.Whether the suit is barred by limitation? ...OPD12. Relief.” 7.Plaintiffs examined as many as nine witnesses and defendants in support of their defence examined as many as seven witnesses. 8.After the conclusion of the evidence led by the parties, the parties were heard and the suit was partly decreed, as aforesaid. 9.While going through the impugned judgment, we reach to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge has not even discussed the stand/defence taken by the State in the written statement. He has even not bothered to discuss the evidence led by the State, i.e., DW-1 Shri Gulab Singh, DW2 Shri Liaq Ram Sharma, DW3 Shri Vishnu Dutt, DW4 Shri Madan Singh, DW5 Shri P.C. Bhardwaj, DW6 Shri O.P. Gupta and DW7 Shri Sant Ram Bhickta, Thus, the judgment is not speaking and is cryptic one and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10.The judgment impugned also deserves to be set-aside being passed in breach of order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11.Having said so, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, who is now vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction, for decision afresh, after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and to decide the same, as early as possible, preferably within three months from today. 12.Parties are directed to cause appearance before the transferee Court on 1st April, 2014. 13.Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith, so as to reach before the learned trial Court well before 1st April, 2014. 14.Both the appeals alongwith applications stand disposed of.