G. Murlidhar Rao vs P. Sakkubai and Another

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—This C.M.A is filed against the judgment, dated 26.2.2002, rendered by the Court of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad, in A.S. No. 101 of 1999.

The relevant facts may briefly be stated as under:

The first respondent filed the suit against the appellant and the second respondent (who was given up in this appeal as not a necessary party), for the relief of recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, and arrears of rent. She pleaded that she leased out the said property to the second respondent, and he in turn, had sub-leased the same to the appellant herein.

The appellant as well as the second respondent filed written statements, opposing the suit. The Trial Court initially framed four issues and thereafter, six additional issues. The first respondent examined herself as PW-1, and did not file any documents. The second respondent and the appellant were examined as DWs. l and 2 respectively, and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. The Trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 14.12.1998.

The first respondent filed A.S. No. 101 of 1999, before the lower Appellate Court. An important ground raised in the appeal was that though as many as eleven issues were framed for trial, the Trial Court has recast all the issues into one common issue; after conclusion of the arguments, and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court accepted the contention of the first respondent and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The grievance of the appellant is that while remanding the matter, the lower Appellate Court, had, in a way, expanded the scope of the suit, instead of directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit, on the basis of the issues, which were already framed.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

The first respondent filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, and for arrears of rent. According to her, the appellant is lessee and the second respondent is the sub-lessee of the premises. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues.

(1) Whether there is any defaults of rents either by D.1 or by D.2 at any point of time?

(2) Whether D.I and D.2 are liable to vacate the suit property?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the arrears of rent as claimed?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mesne profits as prayed for?

(5) To what relief?

Additional Issues:

(6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming possession, or, rents from the 1st defendant in view of her legal notice dated 1.11.1989 (Document No. 2 filed along with plaint) issued to Defendant No. 2 with copy to Defendant No.l?

(7) Whether the claim for mesne profits if any, against Defendant No. 1 from 1.11.1989 is maintainable?

(8) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960?

(9) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit against the first defendant?

(10) Whether the 1st defendant is entitled to compensatory costs u/s 35A CPC and if so to what amount?

(11) Whether the suit as framed for possession and the profits is maintainable?

The parties adduced evidence with reference to the issues and arguments were addressed. The Trial Court has chosen to ignore all the issues, which were already framed, and disposed of the suit on a single issue, namely, "whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable in law".

Though the issue framed or recast by the Trial Court at the stage of hearing, appears to be one on question of law, no provision was referred to, much less, discussed in the judgment. The Trial Court made an observation that there is no privity of contract between the first respondent, and some discrepancy as to evidence, and dismissed the suit.

After going through the entire judgment and examining the manner, in which, the Trial Court dealt with the matter, this Court is compelled to observe that the course adopted by the concerned Presiding Officer was improper and the same has added to the multiplicity of the proceedings.

Framing of issues is an important step in the adjudication of suits. Order 14 C.P.C emphasizes the necessity to frame issues and prescribes the procedure to be followed in that process. The parties would be in a better position to adduce evidence to establish their claims with reference to the issues that are framed. In the absence of the issues, adjudication would be virtually without any direction. If the parties or the Court feel that the dispute or the matter of controversy is not reflected in the issues, which were already framed, steps can be taken to frame additional issues. Rule 5 of Order 14 C.P.C enables the Court to amend or recast the issues depending on the necessity. Rules 4 and 5 of Order 20 C.P.C, mandate that the judgment shall deal with all the issues and points for determination as well as the reasons for such conclusions. It is on the basis of the issues that the parties would determine the nature of evidence, that they may have to adduce, and the type of arguments that have to be advanced. It is a different thing that the Court can combine two or three issues and deal with the same together in the judgment. If the evidence is recorded and arguments are heard with reference to the issues, which are already on record, the Court would under no circumstances be entitled to ignore them and proceed to decide the suit according to its ipse dixit. Such a course would defeat the very procedure and amounts to misconducting the proceedings.

Adjudication by Courts is known for its objectivity and precision . Whimsical approach to the subject-matter is unknown to legal adjudication, that too, in an adversarial system. The judgment of the Trial Court was in clear and utter violation of the settled principles and procedure. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court has rightly chosen to set-aside the same and to remand the matter.

While remanding the suit for fresh disposal, the lower Appellate Court made the following observations:

"Hence, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is set-aside and the suit is remanded to the Trial Court for framing fresh issues and to record any further evidence if necessary, on those issues, giving opportunity to both sides and dispose of the suit.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and O.S. No. 1368/94 on the file of XVIth Junior Civil Judge-Cum-IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal as indicated above. It is left to the discretion of the Trial Court about the imposition of costs".

A perusal of the same discloses that the lower appellate Court directed the Trial Court to frame fresh issues and to record further evidence, if necessary. This Court is of the view that such a course is uncalled for. When issues and additional issues were already framed, and when the record does not disclose that any of the parties have filed application for framing fresh issues, the Trial Court cannot be required to undertake such an exercise. Therefore, the suit ought to have been remanded, to be continued from the stage of arguments.

The C.M.A. is accordingly allowed in part. The order passed by the lower Appellate Court in A.S. No. 101 of 1999 is sustained in all respects, except that the direction as to framing of fresh issues and recording fresh evidence is set-aside, inasmuch as no application was made by any of the parties in that regard. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit with utmost expedition, since the suit is of the year 1994. There shall be no order as to costs.