CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Ghanshyam Das Misra vs IIIrd Additional District Judge,Allahabad

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 11 May 2001 · Citation: (2001) 05 AHC CK 0092

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.K.Rathi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 20 Rule 4 · Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 — Section 15, 25
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8718 of 1996
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 408 words

B. K. Rathi, J.—The petitioner filed S.C.C. Suit No. 49 of 1989 in the Court of J.S.C.C., Allahabad which was decreed on 3 121994 (Annexure5 to the writ petition). Against this decree the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 5 of 1995 which has been allowed by judgment dated 1211996 (Annexure6 to the writ petition) and the matter has been sent back for the decision to the J.S.C.C. Allahabad. Aggrieved by the order of remand, of plaintiff/petitioner preferred this petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2.

I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. None has appeared from the side of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 inspite of sufficient service by registered post.

3.

It has been argued by Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Court has wide powers under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and that it could have decided all the points itself and need not to sent back the case to the Court of J.S.C.C. It has also been contended that the remand of the case will result the delay in disposal of the suit which is for ejectment, that there is no sufficient ground for remanding the case. It has been, therefore, requested that the Revisional Court be directed to decide the revision on merit.

4.

I have considered the arguments and perused the judgment of the Courts below. It is apparent that the Revisional Court had not considered any facts. However, it has rightly done so. A perusal of the judgment of J.S.C.C. Allahabad (Annexure5 to the writ petition) shows that no point for determination was framed. It is mandatory to frame the points for determination as provided by Rule 4 of Order XX, C.P.C. and the judgment delivered without framing points for determination is not a judgment in the eye of law. Therefore, the Revisional Court has directed the trial Court to frame the points for determination and thereafter to give decision thereof.

5.

I do not find any illegality in the order of Revisional Court (Annexure6 to the writ petition), the petition is, therefore, dismissed.

6.

However, it may be observed that the suit was filed in the year 1989. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to expedite the case and decide the suit in accordance with law at an early date. Petition dismissed