JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. None present for the opposite parties in the revised call. 3. This revision has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2006, passed by the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.02 of 2000, by which the suit has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the learned court below has committed a manifest error of law in not framing the questions for determination in accordance with Order XX, Rule 4 C.P.C. It has also been submitted that the learned court below has also failed to appreciate the point that the revisionists were the owner of the building and not owner of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs-revisionists are the owner landlord of the construction and the defendants-respondents have paid rent to the plaintiffs-revisionists thereby admitting the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. It has also been submitted that the findings of learned court below are illegal, perverse and factually misconceived, therefore, they are liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the case Akhil Kumar Jain vs. Smt. Sharda Devi and others reported in [ 2011 (29) LCD 910 ], in which it has been held that if the points for determination have not been framed then the said judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon the case Pratap Raj Singh vs. Shiv Nath Khanna reported in 1984 (1) ARC 498, in which this Court has held as under: - "In order to resolve this controversy, reference has to be made to decisions of this Court. In Ram Nath Tulsi Ram v. Salig Ram, AIR All. 399 this court observed that an order passed by the Court of Small Causes in amendable to the jurisdiction of higher court under Section 25 of the U.P. Small Cause Courts Act and in order to find out whether there has been a decision in accordance with law, it is necessary for the revising court to be satisfied that the Judge, Small Cause Court has come to the decision judicially. This court held that if the Judge did not determine all the issues and there is nothing on record to indicate that the Judge has considered all issues, there is no proper trial and the revising court has the jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment and decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Reliance was placed by this court on earlier decisions of this court in which it was held that the Judge Small Cause Court must indicate in his judgment that he has applied his judicious mind to the case. In the instant case, the trial court has only referred to the evidence of the plaintiff and has not discussed how the plaintiff's case is proved by the evidence so led. In M/s. Krishna Fine Art Printers v. Ram Chandra Sharma, 1979 ALJ 615 this again reiterated the view taken in Ram Nath Tulsi Ram v. Salig Ram (supra). On behalf of the opposite parties, a number of decisions rendered by other High Courts were cited which had taken rather a strict view of the provisions of Order XX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having regard to the view express by this court in the aforesaid decisions, it is obvious that the decision rendered by the trial court is incorrect as it does not give a reasoned judgment and does not comply with the requirements of Order XX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure." 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied upon the case Rameshwar Dayal vs. Banda (Dead) through His LRs and others reported in [1993 All.CJ. (Supreme Court) 597], in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: - "Points for determination" referred to in Rule 4 (1) are obviously nothing but "issues" contemplated by Rules 1 and 3 of Order 14 of the Code. The present decision of the Small Cause Court which has not even stated the points for determination and given finding thereon, is obviously not a judgment within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of the Code. Since the matters were in controversy between the parties, it is only a judgment which could have given rise to a decree. The present decision of the Small Cause Court which has not even stated the points for determination and given finding thereon, is obviously not a judgment within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of the Code. Since the matters were in controversy between the parties, it is only a judgment which could have given rise to a decree. The so-called decision of the Small Cause Court, therefore, does not amount to a decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2) read with Section 2 (9) and Rules 4 (1) and 5 of Order 20 of the Code." 8. Order XX, rule 4, which gives what the judgment of a Civil Court should contain runs as under: (1) Judgment of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon. (2) Judgments of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. 9. It appears on comparison of the two clauses of the rule stated above that a Court of Small Causes need not in its judgment give reasons for its decision. But there can be no manner of doubt that at least the minimum requirements of law must be satisfied, that is to say, the judgment must set out the points for determination and the decision thereon. Unless the judgment does this it is impossible to form an opinion whether the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has considered all the questions raised before him. A Judge of the Court of Small Causes is not required under the law to write an elaborate judgment but there ought to be some indication in his judgment that he has applied a judicial mind to the case. The Judge of a Small Cause Court must deal with the case in the manner required by law and not in a manner which gives neither the points for determination nor any guarantee that he has sufficiently understood the cause. It is true that a Court of Small Causes is not bound to write a judgment with the same fullness as an ordinary Civil Court and it need not give reasons for its decision and can reduce its remarks to a minimum confining itself to point for determination and the decision thereon, still it is obvious that this minimum must be intelligible. If with the aid of the record the judgment, however brief, shows that the Judge had grasped the questions for decision and has answered them, not arbitrarily, but for reasons which can be readily understood, then he has complied with the provisions which regulate his procedure. 10. If the High Court is empowered to satisfy itself that a decree or order of the Judge of a Small Case Court was in accordance with law or not, "a correlative duty is impliedly cast on that Judge to make his judgment sufficiently intelligible to enable the High Court to perform its duty properly". The Judge might without giving his reasons for the decision, elucidate the points for determination in such detail as to make the decision intelligible. Where there is nothing to excite suspicion and the plaintiff has given such proof of his claim as law requires the plaintiff and a High Court are entitled to have some indication from the Judge of a Court of Small Causes of the points upon which he dismisses a suit, to show that he is not acting from mere caprice or in ignorance of the rules of the law which regulate the proof requisite to establish a plaintiff's claims. In order that the High Court may consider in revision under Section 25 that the decision by the Court of Small Causes is correct, there must be something in the judgment to indicate that the Judge has applied his mind to the evidence on the record and has come to his decision judicially and not arbitrarily. Order XX, Rule 4 requires that the judgment should indicate that the Judge framed issue properly on the pleadings or applied his mind in considering all the issues or weighing the evidence on the record. When all that the judgment states is "issue is not proved and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed", or "point is the plaint claim true? I find the plaint claim true", the minimum requirements of law cannot be deemed to have been satisfied. A Judge exercising Small Cause Court powers is not required, and rightly not required, to make an elaborate record. But he is expected obviously to apply his mind to the decision of the Small Cause Court case as carefully as he would apply his mind to the decision of a regular suit. A Judge exercising Small Cause Court powers is not required, and rightly not required, to make an elaborate record. But he is expected obviously to apply his mind to the decision of the Small Cause Court case as carefully as he would apply his mind to the decision of a regular suit. When the onus in the case on the defendant and the Judge does not even state in the judgment that he prefers the evidence of the defendant to the plaintiff's, the case cannot be said to have been properly tried and the High Court will be justified in setting aside the judgment. It is necessary for the High Court to satisfy itself that there has been a decision in accordance with law, and in order to find out whether there has been a decision in accordance with law it is necessary for the High Court to be satisfied that the Judge of the Small Cause Court has come to his decision judicially and not arbitrarily. Under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the High Court may interfere in revision where a decree or order made in the Court of Small Causes is not "according to law". 11. The minimum requirement of law for a judgment in a Small Cause Court case as stated in Order XX, Rule 4 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, are imperative. The Judge is required to state the points for determination and the decision thereon, to make it clear that the Judge has understood the case and what his decision is. When Small Cause Judge has clubbed the suits all together and made a statement merely to the effect that he finds all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, it cannot be regarded as a compliance even with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 4. A judgment which does not specify the points for determination and the decision thereon is a decision which is not legal, and the High Court may justly remand it in revision for a fresh trial. 12. The perusal of judgment dated 12.12.2006 reveals that the learned court below has not framed any point for determination. Although the Court of Small Causes is not required to give reasons for its findings on the issues involved in the case, but as a matter of practice it is usually done. 12. The perusal of judgment dated 12.12.2006 reveals that the learned court below has not framed any point for determination. Although the Court of Small Causes is not required to give reasons for its findings on the issues involved in the case, but as a matter of practice it is usually done. It is settled position of law that in absence of compliance with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 4 C.P.C., it will lead to the conclusion that it is no judgment in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow cannot be treated as a judgment because the points for determination have not been framed as required under Order XX, Rule 4 C.P.C. and accordingly the judgment is illegal as well as perverse and cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed. 14. The revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Lucknow with the direction to decide the said SCC Suit expeditiously after framing the points for determination and to proceed accordingly after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 15. The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Lucknow on 29.05.2015. 16. Office is directed to send the lower court record immediately along with a certified copy of this order.