Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S. Apollo Health And Lifestyle ... vs Anupam Saraogi on 23 December, 2014
Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
C.C.C.A.NO.105 OF 2014
23-12-2014
M/s. Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited and another. Appellants
Anupam Saraogi Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : M/s. Lawyers & Solicitors
Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Manjari S. Ganu
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
C.C.C.A.NO.105 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) By consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing at this stage.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09-04-2014 in O.S.No.692 of 2007 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge has decreed the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment of the trial court to contend that the trial court did not frame the issues that arose in the suit for determination and as a result thereof, it misdirected itself and/or failed to consider the real issues involved in the suit for determination.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that though no specific issue in respect of jurisdiction was not framed, the court below considered it on merits and answered the same in the affirmative and, therefore, it cannot be stated that the issues for determination were not framed by the learned judge while deciding the suit.
5. It is now well settled that issues, as contemplated by Order 14 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code), must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be general and vague. The learned judge dealing with the suit should not approach the suit merely from the point of speedily disposing of the same. The suit must be also intelligently disposed of after taking note of the arguments advanced, the issues arising from the arguments, and the other materials on record and then decide those issues properly on merits. A failure to understand the object of the provisions contained in Order 14, in particular Rules 1 to 3 thereof, in the instant case has demonstrably resulted in failure of justice.
6. A bare look at the provisions contained in Rules 1 to 3 in particular of Order 14 of the Code would show that a duty/responsibility is cast on the trial court, at the first hearing of the suit, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after examination under Rule 2 of Order 10 and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Code, pronounce judgment on all issues. Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first, if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the issue in accordance with the decision on that issue.
7. It is also necessary for the learned judge, while framing the issues, to bear in mind the allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties; the allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit; and the contents of the documents produced by their party. It is also mandatory for the trial court to assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant issues which arise for adjudication and bearing of the evidence on those issues. Thus, as contemplated by Rule 5 of Order 14 of the Code, the trial court must record reasons for its decision on each issue independently and such exercise should be done after formulating the issues, that arise for consideration/determination. In other words, the trial court while considering and deciding the suit should realise that it has to be decided strictly in adherence with the provisions contained in Order 14 of the Code. The provisions contained in this Order deal with the judgment to be pronounced by the court on all issues. When a requirement such as this is insisted upon by the procedural law, one must try to understand the object and scope of such provision. It must be evident from the judgment of the trial court that it has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the materials/evidence on record. Unless the trial courts judgment is based on independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all issues, it would not amount to substantial compliance of the provisions contained in Order 14 of the Code. It is, therefore, necessary for the trial court to frame the issues for determination and examine the same in the light of the facts/evidence led by the parties. Merely asking the question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for is hopelessly an inadequate method of meeting the requirement of the provisions contained in Order 14 of the Code. Thus, it is necessary that the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail and such exercise should be done after formulating the issues for determination in terms of the provisions contained in Order 14 of the Code.
8. In the present case, the trial court has framed only one issue for consideration i.e., whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for. This practice/procedure adopted by the learned judge was wrong and it was inadequate requirement of the provisions contained in Order 14 of the Code. We find the approach of learned judge was absolutely casual in dealing with the suit. It is apparent that the learned judge even did not refer to the material evidence on record, such as Exs.A-3 and A-4 and the relevant clauses thereof, in particular. When we noticed all this and expressed our view, in the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the parties agreed for an order that we propose to pass. Hence, we dispose of this appeal by the following order:-
a. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 09.04.2014 is set aside and the suit (O.S.No.692 of 2007) is restored to file and remanded to the trial Court. The trial Court shall decide the suit, from the stage of the arguments, afresh as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 30.06.2015.
b. It is needless to mention that the learned Judge shall frame proper issues and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law. Further, the learned Judge shall indicate all the issues that he proposes to frame and address, while delivering the judgment, to the learned counsel appearing for the parties even before commencement of arguments so as to enable them to address their arguments on all issues. No order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
10. At this stage, as requested by the learned counsel for the parties, the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 02.02.2015 along with a copy of this judgment. Refund of Court fee, if any, as per the rules.
_____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, J ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd December, 2014