AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Murlidher Rao, J.-Though this matter is posted for admission as requested by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent, it is taken up for final disposal.
Mr. D.R. Rajashekarappa, HCGP is directed to take notice for respondent-2. He is permitted to file his memo of appearance in three weeks.
This appeal is by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Bidar. Prima facie the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, is unsustainable as it is not in conformity with O. 41 R. 31 C.P.C.
The plaintiffs in support of their case, examined two witnesses and produced six documents. The defendant has examined the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipality. Since it was a judgment of reversal, it was incumbent on the learned Civil Judge to have dealt with the evidence and reversed the findings of the trial court. This was not done. The judgment of the learned Civil Judge does not demonstrate his application of mind to the material on record. Therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained.
For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed; the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Bidar, are set aside; the matter is remitted to that court with a direction to consider the material on record and deal with the matter in issue demonstrating the application of his mind and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The Civii Judge is directed to hear and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of the receipt of this judgment. No costs.
Parties are directed to appear before the Civil Judge, Bidar on 15th March 1990 without any notice from that court. The appellants are entitled to refund of court for permissible under law.
Appeal allowed.