K.V.Shetty v. Woodbriar Estates Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 10.03.2008CoramTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.J.MUKOPHADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALO.S.A.No.335 of 2001K.V.Shetty .. Appellant vs. 1.Woodbriar Estates Limited, Having its Office at Devarsola, Nilgiris District.2.Wilson & Co., Limited, having office at No.739, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.3.V.K.Rajaram4.V.A.N.S.Chandran5.P.J.Joseph6.A.Stewart .. RespondentsPRAYER: Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S. Rules against theJudgment and Decree dated 28.03.2001 passed by the learned Single Judgein C.S.No.878 of 1987. For Appellant: Mr.S.Elam BharathiFor Respondents: No appearance J U D G M E N TM.VENUGOPAL,J.This Original Side Appeal is directed by the appellant/plaintiff asagainst the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2001 passed by the learnedsingle Judge in C.S.No.878 of 1987.2.The learned single Judge in his Judgment dated 28.03.2001 inC.S.No.878 of 1987 has inter-alia observed that 'the appellant/plaintiffis not entitled to the reliefs claimed for and that the suit ismisconceived and accordingly, dismissed the suit with costs ofdefendants 1,2 and 4/respondents 1,2 and 4'. Aggrieved against theJudgment and Decree dated 28.03.2001 passed by the learned single Judgein C.S.No.878 of 1987, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred thisappeal.3.The appellant/plaintiff in the suit has prayed for the relief ofdirecting the defendants 1, 3 to 5/respondents jointly and severally orany of them as may be found liable to pay to the appellant/plaintiff the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ whole sum of Rs.21,07,676.80 or such sum out of the aforesaid amount asmay be apportioned between the said defendants/respondents together withinterest at 18% per annum on the said amount from the date of suit tilldate of payment and for the relief of mandatory injunction directing thedefendants 1, 4 and 5/respondents to issue equity shares to the extentof Rs.10,00,000/- with the second defendant out of the sum standing tothe credit of the first defendant/first respondent with the seconddefendant/second respondent and for costs.4.In the suit, five issues were framed and on appellant/plaintiff'sside P.W.1-K.V.Shetty was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked. Onthe side of defendants, no one was examined as witness and Ex.D.1 wasmarked.5.According to the learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff,the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2001 passed by the learned singleJudge in C.S.No.878 of 1987 suffers from material irregularity and thatthe same is contrary to law and evidence and that the suit has not beendecided on the basis of evidence and contentions raised and that thelearned single Judge has not taken into consideration the evidence ofP.W.1 (appellant/plaintiff) and that in the absence of any oral evidenceon the part of defendants/ respondents, an adverse inference ought tohave been drawn against the respondents/defendants and that the evidenceof P.W.1 ought to have been accepted by the learned single Judge andthat no finding has been given on each and every issue and therefore,there has been a miscarriage of justice.6.In the suit, defendants 3, 5 and 6/respondents 3,5 and 6 have notappeared either in person or through counsel.7.It is not out of place to point out that as per Or. XIV (2) ofC.P.C., the court is to pronounce Judgment on all issues. As a matter offact, it is incumbent on the Court to adjudicate the case on all issues,though the decision may depend on one issue, in the considered opinionof this Court. Admittedly, in the instant case on hand, five issues wereframed in the suit. In terms of Or.20 R.5, the Court is to state itsdecision on each issue. In fact, the Or.20 R.5 of C.P.C. is mandatory inits language, that the Court shall state its finding or decision withreasons thereof upon each separate issue and all the distinct issue haveto be answered by the finding supported by reasons. However, anexception is visualised under Or.14 R.2 C.P.C. where an issue relatingto the jurisdiction or a bar to a suit created by any law for the timearises for consideration and if court can once and for all dispose ofthe case with reference to the said issues only, in such a context, theCourt is empowered to defer the settlement of other issues, only afterthat issue has been determined and may deal with the suit in accordancewith the decision on the preliminary issues.8.At this stage, it is significant to mention that in AIR 2001Himachal Pradesh at page 18 Om Prakash and others V. State of HimachalPradesh and others, it is observed as follows:"(A)Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.20 R.5 – Judgment – What is –Judge framing all issues – Enumerating evidence and law –Thereafter giving conclusion, thereby accepting points of oneparty and rejecting that of other – Judgment not containingreasons or grounds for coming to conclusion on each issue – It https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is no judgment.AIR 1985 S.C. 736, Followed".9.In AIR 1973 Patna 389 at 390 Ram Padarath Singh V. BaidyanathPrasad and others, it is held that "Notwithstanding the provisions ofO.14 R.2 in appealable cases, the trial Court should pronounce itsopinion on all issues so as to avoid remand if the appellate Courtdiffers from the trial Court on preliminary issue. AIR 1954 SC 202Relied on".10.On a perusal of the Judgment passed by the learned single Judgein C.S.No.878 of 1987 dated 28.03.2001, we are of the view that there isno finding on each issue notwithstanding the fact that totally fiveissues were framed in the suit. The object of deciding all the issues ina suit is to prevent rem and multiplicity of suit, in the consideredopinion of this Court.11.Inasmuch as there is no decision on each issue in the Judgmentin C.S.No.878 of 1987 (though totally five issues were framed) passed bythe learned single Judge, we are perforced to interfere with the saidJudgment and Decree passed by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.878 of1987 dated 28.03.2001 without deciding the case on merits since the sameis contrary to the Civil Procedure Code and in that view, allow theAppeal and remit the matter back to the learned single Judge fordisposing the same by pronouncing opinion on all issues in accordancewith law. Resultantly, the Judgment and Decree passed by the learnedsingle Judge is hereby set aside. Bearing in mind considering the factsand circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear theirown costsSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarSglTo1. The Sub Assistant Registrar(O.S)High Court, Madras.JUDGMENT INO.S.A.NO.335 OF 2001CMP(CO)rvr 16/06/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.03.2008