AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.—The judgment of the Lower Court in this Small Cause case is an extremely unsatisfactory one. The learned District
Munsif says that he finds all the issues for the plaintiffs. My attention has been drawn to the terms of Order 20, Rule 4 and the decision of this
Court reported in K.M. Koppa Kurup Vs. Velayichettichiar and Another, . In that case Spencer and Krishnan, JJ. laid down that it was enough
for a Small Cause Judge to follow the provisions of Order 2O, Rule 4, Clause (1), and the learned Judges further proceeded to observe that they
are unable to follow the line taken by Seshagiri Aiyar, J. in Kandaswami Chetti v. Raualinga Chetti (1920) 12 LW 285. I should have been
disinclined to interfere in this ease if at any rate the District Munsif had, while setting out the points for determination according to him, at least
stated his decision with regard to each separately. But when I find that he has clubbed them all together and made a statement merely to the effect
that he finds all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, 1 cannot regard it as a compliance even with the provisions of Order 20, Rule 4. Taking one of
the points for determination, namely, ""Did the defendant commit breach of contract as alleged by the plaintiffs,"" and taking the words of the District
Munsif, the finding should be deemed to be that the defendants did commit breach of contract. It is not at all clear how the District Munsif found
that the breach came to be committed by the defendants. This was not a case in which any time was fixed for the performance of the contract and
the defend-ant, in his written statement, setout that he was not only ready and willing to deliver to the plaintiffs the balance of the cocoanuts but that
the plaintiffs refused to accept delivery of the same. No doubt if the defendant was bound to perform the contract within a reasonable time and
failed to do so he would have been guilty of breach of contract. But that would undoubtedly be a point for determination and I see no indication
whatever in the judgment that the, attention of the learned District Munsif was at all drawn to this feature of the case or that he came to any
conclusion or decision with regard thereto. On the whole, I am satisfied that the judgment before me does not comply with the provisions of law
and is also otherwise very unsatisfactory. I, therefore, set it aside and direct that the case be remanded to the Lower Court for being disposed of
according to law. If the parties desire they would be at liberty to adduce such evidence or fresh evidence as may be deemed fit. Costs in this Court
will be reserved and be dealt with and disposed of by the Lower Court as part of its order for costs.