Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 512 (HP)

Satya Chauhan v. State of H. P.

2017-05-15

SANJAY KAROL, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010, passed by learned Single Judge, in Civil Suit No. 37 of 2000, titled as Satya Chauhan vs. State of H.P. and Others, is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, we are of the considered view that the appellant has made out a case for interference. 3. Bare reading of the impugned judgment reveals that while answering Issues No. 3 and 4, determination of which led to the passing of the judgment and decree against the plaintiff, the learned Single Judge referred to the evidence led by the parties, only in part. Entire evidence has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 4. In Union of India and Others vs. Manager, M/s. Jain and Associates, (2001) 3 SCC 277 , the apex Court held as follows: "The result is - before pronouncing judgment, the Court has to apply its mind to arrive at the conclusion whether there is any cause to modify or remit the award. Further the phrase "pronounce judgment" would itself indicate judicial determination by reasoned order for arriving at the conclusion that decree in terms of award be passed. One of the meanings given to the word "judgment" in Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edn., Vol. 1 (1984)) reads thus: "The result of judging; the decision or conclusion reached, as after consideration or deliberation." Further, Order 20 Rule 4 (2) CPC in terms provides that "judgment" shall contain a concise statement of case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. This is antithesis to pronouncement of non-speaking order." 5. In Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 197 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, observed as under: “10. Certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be noticed. Order VII, Rule 1 of the CPC requires the plaintiff to give sufficient particulars of the relief, which the plaintiff claims. Order XX requires a judgment to contain all the issues and findings or decision thereon with the reasons therefor. The judgment has to state the relief allowed to a party. The preparation of decree follows the judgment. The decree shall agree with the judgment. Order XX requires a judgment to contain all the issues and findings or decision thereon with the reasons therefor. The judgment has to state the relief allowed to a party. The preparation of decree follows the judgment. The decree shall agree with the judgment. The decree shall contain, inter-alia, particulars of the claim and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit. The decree shall also state the amount of costs incurred in the suit and by whom or out of what property and in what proportions such costs are to be paid. Rules 9 to 19 of Order XX are illustrative of contents of decrees in certain specified categories of suits. The very obligation cast by the Code that the decree shall agree with the judgment spells out an obligation on the part of the author of the judgment to clearly indicate the relief or reliefs to which a party, in his opinion, has been found entitled to enable decree being framed in such a manner that it agrees with the judgment and specifies clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit. The operative part of the judgment should be so clear and precise that in the event of an objection being laid, it should not be difficult to find out by a bare reading of the judgment and decree whether the latter agrees with the former and is in conformity therewith. A self-contained decree drawn up in conformity with the judgment would exclude objections and complexities arising at the stage of execution.” 6. In Balraj Taneja and Another vs. Sunil Madan and Another, (1999) 8 SCC 396 , the apex Court observed: “42. "judgment" as defined in Section 2 (9) of the Code of Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20, Rule 4 (2) which says that a judgment: "Shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision." It should be a self-contained documents from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment.” “45. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the provisions of Order 20, Rule 1 (2) would apply only to contested cases as it is only in those cases that "the points for determination" as mentioned in this Rule will have to be indicated, and not in a case in which the written statement had not been filed by the defendants and the facts set out in the plaint are deemed to have been admitted. We do not agree. 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. 46. An attempt was made to contend that the definition of judgment as set out in Section 2 (9) of the Code would not be applicable to the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in its original jurisdiction wherein the proceedings are regulated by the provisions of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. It is contended that the word "judgment" used in the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 would not take its colour from the definition of "judgment" contained in Section 2 (9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. We do not intend to enter into this controversy, fortunately as it is not contended that the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply, but we cannot refrain from expressing that even if it were so, the Delhi High Court is not absolved of its obligation to write a judgment as understood in common parlance. Even if the definition were not contained in Section 2 (9) or the contents thereof were not indicated in Order 20, Rule 1 (2), CPC, the judgment would still mean the process of reasoning by which a Judge decides a case in favour of one party and against the other. In judicial proceedings, there cannot be arbitrary orders. A Judge cannot merely say "suit decreed" or "suit dismissed". In judicial proceedings, there cannot be arbitrary orders. A Judge cannot merely say "suit decreed" or "suit dismissed". The whole process of reasoning has to be set out for deciding the case one way or the other. This infirmity in the present judgment is glaring and for that reason also the judgment cannot be sustained.” (Reiterated in Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 396 ) 7. The Apex Court in Swaran Lata Ghosh vs. H.K. Banerjee and Another, (1969) 3 SCR 976 , has held as under:- “Trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to achieve, according to law and the procedure of the Court, a judicial determination between the contesting parties of the matter in controversy. Opportunity to the parties interested in the dispute to present their respective cases on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence tendered by the parties, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon a finding on the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a judicial trial. In a judicial trial the Judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the High Court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest: it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just.” 8. Plaintiff may have been the owner of the land in question, but whether there was any negligence on the part of the private defendants in the construction of road with the use of machinery of the State and as to whether there was any negligence giving cause of action to the plaintiff to claim damages, was necessarily required to be examined, only after taking into account the entire evidence led by the parties. No doubt, plaintiff’s claim stands rejected, but then the issues (six in number) had to be adjudicated, threadbare, after considering, appreciating and discussing the evidence in totality. Now, all this, in our considered view, has resulted into failure of justice. 9. With the aforesaid observations and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court, present appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010, passed by learned Single Judge, in Civil Suit No. 37 of 2000, titled as Satya Chauhan vs. State of H.P. and Others, is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.