Krishna Fine Art Printers vs Ram Chandra Sharma

V.K. Mehrotra, J.—The present revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been filed by the Defendant, who is a tenant of the premises in dispute, against the decree dated April 22, 1975 in Small Cause Suit No. 3 of 1975 of the court of the 8th Additional District Judge, Meerut. By this decree, the trial Judge directed recovery of certain amount as arrears of rent as well as ejectment of the applicant from the premises. The suit was decreed exparte.

A perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that after the mention of the particulars of the case, it has been observed by it under the heading of "Nirnaya (decision)" that the Plaintiffs examined himself and deposed to the facts stated in the plaint and that the Plaintiff was entitled to an ex-parte decree. Thereafter, the operative portion which is headed as "Adesh" mentions the actual decree which has been passed by the Court.

It is true that while deciding a suit as Judge, Small Causes, the trial Judge is not required to write out an elaborate judgment yet it is essential in law for him to mention in the judgment the necessary facts relating to the controversy, the points for determination arising therein and his decision thereon. Rule 4 of order XX CPC specifically provides that the judgment of a Court of Small Causes must contain the points for determination and the decision thereon. The judgment of the learned trial Judge in the instant case, as noticed above, contains a bald statement about the operative order. Such a decision is clearly not in accordance with law. It cannot, consequently, be sustained.

In the result, the application in revision succeeds and is allowed. The decision under challenge is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Judge who will now deal with it in accordance with law. The parties shall, however, bear their on costs.