Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 142 (AP)

Shaik Gannu Saidulu v. Gatti Srinivasa Rao

2020-02-20

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. The present appeal is filed by the defendant in the suit against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2008 in O.S.No.107 of 2008 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. The present appeal had been posted for hearing on 10.02.2020, 12.02.2020 and today i.e. 17.02.2020, for hearing. However, there is no representation for the respondent as such the matter is being disposed of on merits after hearing the appellant. 3. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the main suit. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.107 of 2008 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 05.01.2008 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant for purchase of 150 sq. Yards of land along with RCC building therein, in Municipal Door No.8-9-65, 66 in Guntur Municipal Corporation area and which is more closely described in the schedule to the plain and hereinafter referred to as "the suit property". 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that according to the agreement the plaintiff would purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- from the defendant and the plaintiff had paid advance sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- on 05.01.2008 to the defendant, which was used by the defendant to discharge his debt due to Urban Bank, Kottapet Branch, Guntur. The defendant had handed over the necessary documents to the plaintiff and was to receive the balance sale consideration by 10.03.2008. However, the defendant failed to fulfil his obligation, because of which the plaintiff was forced to issue a registered notice to the defendant on 12.05.2008 and as there was no response, the plaintiff stated that he has approached the Court by way of the above suit. 5. The trial Judge, thereupon, decreed the suit ex parte, on 01.12.2008 in the following manner. "PW.1 examined, Exs.A.1 to A.13 marked. Suit is decreed directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of sale consideration before the court within one month from this date and the defendant is directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months from this date, and receive balance of sale consideration from the court. In the event of failure by the plaintiff, the suit stands dismissed. In the event of default on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the document executed through process of the Court. In the event of failure by the plaintiff, the suit stands dismissed. In the event of default on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the document executed through process of the Court. Accordingly, the suit is decreed with costs." 6. The defendant is now in appeal against the said judgment and decree on the ground that the defendant had not received proper notice and ought not to have been set ex parte and even in the event of the defendant having been set ex pate, the learned trial Judge could not have passed the judgment and decree that he did in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balraj Taneja and anr. V. Sunil Madan and anr., 1999 AIR(SC) 3381 and the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Mailwar Narsappa and anr. V. B. Sangamma, 2014 1 ALT 171 . 7. Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken me through these two judgments and more specifically paras-36, 40-A and 43 of Balraj Taneja and anr., case (supra), which read under: "A perusal of the above judgment will indicate that the suit had been decreed only because of the failure of the defendants in filing the written statement. This exhibits the annoyance of the Court which is natural as no Court would allow the proceedings to be delayed or procrastinated. But this should not disturb the judicial composure which unfortunately is apparent in the instant case as the judgment neither sets out the facts of the case nor does it record the process of reasoning by which the Court felt that the case of the plaintiff was true and stood proved. "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 document 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. 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 has 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. 8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that even in the event of the defendant remaining ex parte, the trial Court is required to go through the material on record and the evidence placed, apply its mind and pass a reasoned order setting out the grounds on which the suit is being allowed. As no such exercise has been carried out by the trial Judge, it is necessary to set aside the said judgment and decree of the trial Court. 9. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order XX C.P.C., states as follows: "Rule 4 (1): ------ Judgments of the other Courts. (2) 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." 10. Apart from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and our High Court, it would also be necessary to extract an observation of a Full Bench of this Court reported as Aziz Ahmed Khan v. I.A. Patel, 1974 AIR(AP) 1 (F.B) at para-17, as under: "The irregularities committed by the trial court do not stop at that. The judgment that it has given does not conform to the provisions of Rule 4 (2) of Order XX, C.P.C. at all. The judgment that it has given does not conform to the provisions of Rule 4 (2) of Order XX, C.P.C. at all. Whereas a judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, and the decision thereon, we search in vain for any of these essentials in the impugned judgment. It is no judgment at all. The provisions of Rule 4 (2) have a set purpose. The form is designed to ensure that while pronouncing the orders or judgments. They should apply their minds to the facts of the case and the points at issue and give a reasoned judgment thereon so that not only their own conscience may be satisfied but also the litigants should have satisfaction that all their evidence has been evaluated and their contentions and arguments duly considered. This is of vital importance inasmuch as the whole edifice of confidence of the litigants in Courts is built upon the quality of judgments. The Courts, therefore, have to necessarily take care that their judgments conform to the provisions of law and are products of sound reasoning. In the instant case the judgment of the trial Court which we have extracted above is no judgment at all. The appeal must be allowed on that basis also." 11. The afore cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Balraj Taneja and anr., case (supra) has been followed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Mailwar Narsappa's case (supra), which has been cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the relevant portion, which is extracted below: "Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, it is clearly evident that the decree passed by the trial Court is an ex parte decree, which is also vitiated on account of non-application of mind and non consideration of five issues. Hence, the impugned judgment suffers from procedural as well as jurisdictional errors and warrants interference by this Court under Section 96 C.P.C. The appeal suit, therefore, is liable to be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the Court below and the appellants/defendants are required to be granted opportunity to contest the suit by participating in the suit from the stage of evidence of PW 3 onwards." 12. Apart from this, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been followed by this Hon'ble Court in Smt. V. Nagalakshmi v. Seetharama Finance Corp., 2002 1 AndhWR 163 And Berger Paints India Ltd., v. Syed Vicaruddin, 2005 1 ALD 154 . 13. In the present case, it appears that there was no defence raised by the defendant and the defendant remained ex parte. In such a situation Rule 4(2) of Order XX C.P.C., would be applicable and the Court would have to set out a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. 14. A perusal of the judgment would show that none of the requirements of Rule 4(2) of Order XX C.P.C., have been complied with. There is no application of mind by the learned trial Judge, except to state that PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. 15. In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2008 in O.S.NO.107 of 2008 is set aside and the suit is remanded to the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur for fresh adjudication after giving notice to the plaintiff as well as the defendant. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.