The approach of the first appellate Court is criticized
on the ground that the rulings which were cited, were simply
listed in the judgment without commenting upon as to why those
rulings are cited, which submission was advanced in respect of
which ruling and whether the rulings were acceptable to the first
appellate Court or not. Further more, it appears that the first
appeal arose from the judgment and order passed in Special Civil
Suit No.11 of 1988. The final order, which was passed in the suit
reads thus;
“The plaintiff's suit for declaration, for
possessing and for inquiry into the mesne profits is
hereby in its entirety.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/ A.B. Patil
Dt/11.10.2000 (Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.),
Yavatmal.”
This order without head and tail shows non
application of mind by learned trial Judge. This was also
overlooked by learned first appellate Judge. This is a fit case in
which we have to comment upon negligence by the trial Judge.
Before signing final order in the suit, casual approach was shown.
He has just signed the judgment and then final order without
application of judicious mind to the same. The same error was
repeated by learned first appellate Judge also. He simply listed
the rulings without commenting upon as to each of the ruling
whether it is attracted or not in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2013
Manoj Ganpatlal Chamedia
: Versus :
Hariom Chaganlal Jaipuriya,
CORAM : A. P. BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2015.
Citation;2016(1) ALLMR 526
2. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the
parties.
3. This appeal has challenged validity and legality of the
impugned judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal
No.45 of 2001 decided on 14/8/2012 whereby the first appeal
was dismissed.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited
my attention to the contents of judgment in the first appeal. The
only point for determination was mentioned thus;
“Whether the impugned judgment and decree are
legal, proper and correct?”
5. The approach of the first appellate Court is criticized
on the ground that the rulings which were cited, were simply
listed in the judgment without commenting upon as to why those
rulings are cited, which submission was advanced in respect of
which ruling and whether the rulings were acceptable to the first
appellate Court or not. Further more, it appears that the first
appeal arose from the judgment and order passed in Special Civil
Suit No.11 of 1988. The final order, which was passed in the suit
reads thus;
“The plaintiff's suit for declaration, for
possessing and for inquiry into the mesne profits is
hereby in its entirety.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/ A.B. Patil
Dt/11.10.2000 (Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.),
Yavatmal.”
6. This order without head and tail shows non
application of mind by learned trial Judge. This was also
overlooked by learned first appellate Judge. This is a fit case in
which we have to comment upon negligence by the trial Judge.
Before signing final order in the suit, casual approach was shown.
He has just signed the judgment and then final order without
application of judicious mind to the same. The same error was
repeated by learned first appellate Judge also. He simply listed
the rulings without commenting upon as to each of the ruling
whether it is attracted or not in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
7. In the circumstances, the parties will have to go
before the trial Court again to argue their respective submissions
on merits of the real controversy in the suit. Learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Yeotmal after judicious application of mind and
after hearing the parties once again upon additional evidence
adduced, if any, in respect of prayers in the suit, shall decide the
controversy between the parties on merits according to law.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and order
passed by the first appellate Court as well as the trial Court are set
aside. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court,
i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yeotmal within one month for
disposal of the case expeditiously on merits.
9. Copy of this judgment and order be sent to learned
trial Judge, who had passed final order in Special Civil Suit No. 11
of 1988 and also the first appellate Judge concerned with a
direction that they shall be careful not to repeat such blunders
again. Such blunders do result in not only waste of precious
judicial time and money for the parties and Courts but also cause
harassment to the parties concerned. Second appeal allowed and
disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Print Page
on the ground that the rulings which were cited, were simply
listed in the judgment without commenting upon as to why those
rulings are cited, which submission was advanced in respect of
which ruling and whether the rulings were acceptable to the first
appellate Court or not. Further more, it appears that the first
appeal arose from the judgment and order passed in Special Civil
Suit No.11 of 1988. The final order, which was passed in the suit
reads thus;
“The plaintiff's suit for declaration, for
possessing and for inquiry into the mesne profits is
hereby in its entirety.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/ A.B. Patil
Dt/11.10.2000 (Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.),
Yavatmal.”
This order without head and tail shows non
application of mind by learned trial Judge. This was also
overlooked by learned first appellate Judge. This is a fit case in
which we have to comment upon negligence by the trial Judge.
Before signing final order in the suit, casual approach was shown.
He has just signed the judgment and then final order without
application of judicious mind to the same. The same error was
repeated by learned first appellate Judge also. He simply listed
the rulings without commenting upon as to each of the ruling
whether it is attracted or not in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2013
Manoj Ganpatlal Chamedia
: Versus :
Hariom Chaganlal Jaipuriya,
CORAM : A. P. BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2015.
Citation;2016(1) ALLMR 526
2. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the
parties.
3. This appeal has challenged validity and legality of the
impugned judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal
No.45 of 2001 decided on 14/8/2012 whereby the first appeal
was dismissed.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited
my attention to the contents of judgment in the first appeal. The
only point for determination was mentioned thus;
“Whether the impugned judgment and decree are
legal, proper and correct?”
5. The approach of the first appellate Court is criticized
on the ground that the rulings which were cited, were simply
listed in the judgment without commenting upon as to why those
rulings are cited, which submission was advanced in respect of
which ruling and whether the rulings were acceptable to the first
appellate Court or not. Further more, it appears that the first
appeal arose from the judgment and order passed in Special Civil
Suit No.11 of 1988. The final order, which was passed in the suit
reads thus;
“The plaintiff's suit for declaration, for
possessing and for inquiry into the mesne profits is
hereby in its entirety.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/ A.B. Patil
Dt/11.10.2000 (Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.),
Yavatmal.”
6. This order without head and tail shows non
application of mind by learned trial Judge. This was also
overlooked by learned first appellate Judge. This is a fit case in
which we have to comment upon negligence by the trial Judge.
Before signing final order in the suit, casual approach was shown.
He has just signed the judgment and then final order without
application of judicious mind to the same. The same error was
repeated by learned first appellate Judge also. He simply listed
the rulings without commenting upon as to each of the ruling
whether it is attracted or not in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
7. In the circumstances, the parties will have to go
before the trial Court again to argue their respective submissions
on merits of the real controversy in the suit. Learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Yeotmal after judicious application of mind and
after hearing the parties once again upon additional evidence
adduced, if any, in respect of prayers in the suit, shall decide the
controversy between the parties on merits according to law.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and order
passed by the first appellate Court as well as the trial Court are set
aside. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court,
i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yeotmal within one month for
disposal of the case expeditiously on merits.
9. Copy of this judgment and order be sent to learned
trial Judge, who had passed final order in Special Civil Suit No. 11
of 1988 and also the first appellate Judge concerned with a
direction that they shall be careful not to repeat such blunders
again. Such blunders do result in not only waste of precious
judicial time and money for the parties and Courts but also cause
harassment to the parties concerned. Second appeal allowed and
disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment