Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1807 (ALL)

Satish Chandra Agarwal v. Ashok Jaiswal

2016-05-10

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – In view of the order being passed herein above, there is no need to issue notice to the respondent in the present petition. 2. The prayer for framing issues for determination has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that it is not mandatory for the S.C.C. Court in a summary suit to frame issues as the provisions of Order 14 CPC relating to settlement of issues are not applicable to the proceedings before the Small Causes Court. Order 20, Rule 4 CPC shows that the judgment of the Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon. Issues are not to be framed as required in a regular suit. 3. While arriving at this conclusion, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Yasin and another v. Murari Lal reported in 2013 (2) ARC 376 , wherein previous judgment in Dau Dayal Tandon v. Additional District Judge, Nainital and others 1982 (1) ARC 356 has been relied upon. 4. Challenging this order, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of this Court in Akhil Kumar Jain v. Smt. Sharda Devi and Ors. reported in 2011 (88) ALR 682 to submit that the points of determination as referred in Order 20, Rule 4 have been interpreted by the Apex Court in Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda through his Legal Representatives and another reported in 1993 (21) ALR 233 (SC) in paragraph 19 which is quoted as under: - "15. It must be remembered in this connection that Rules 4 (1) and 5 of Order 20 of the Code are applicable to the judgments of the Small Causes Court. The Rules are as follows: - "4. Judgment of Small Causes Courts (1) Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon.(2) Judgments of other Courts Judgments of other courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision.""S. Court to state Its decision on each issue. In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefore, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issue is sufficient for the decision of the suit." '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 Causes 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 Causes Court, therefore, does not amount to a decree within the me of Section 2 (2) read with Section 2(9) and Rules 4(1) and 5 of Order 20 of the Code." 5. It is held in paragraph 20 that in view of the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, the Civil Procedure Code is applicable to Small Causes Court. Points of determination as contained in Order 20, Rule 4 are nothing but the issues arisen out of the dispute raised by the parties. Without settlement of the issues on the dispute raised by the parties the judgment passed by the Small Causes Court Act cannot be said to be a decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2) read with Section 2 (9) and Rule 4 (1) and 5 of Order 20 of the Code. 6. It is further noteworthy that in the instant case the application for framing issues or points of determination has been filed even before the evidence of parties commenced in the suit. In case the issues or points of determination are framed by the Small Causes Court, it would facilitate both the parties to lead their evidence as they would be well conscious of dispute raised by other party. In case the issues or points of determination are framed by the Small Causes Court, it would facilitate both the parties to lead their evidence as they would be well conscious of dispute raised by other party. So far as the judgment of this Court in Yasin and another (supra) and Dau Dayal (supra) are concerned, the ratio of those judgments would not be applicable for the reason that in those case, the judgment and decree of Small Causes Court was challenged on the ground that it was passed without framing issues or points of determination. In the present case, situation is somewhat different from those cases. 7. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rameshwar Dayal (Supra), it is held that the Court below namely J.S.C.C. Court had erred in rejecting the plea of the petitioner to frame the points of determination or issues of contest. 8. The order dated 22.2.2016 is, therefore, set aside. The Court below is directed to frame issues/points of determination before proceeding further in the suit. 9. However, it is made clear that an effort shall be made by the Court below to decide the suit expeditiously and no unnecessary adjournment shall be allowed. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner undertakes not to seek any unnecessary adjournment and that he would corporate. The Court below is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously. 11. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.