Naresh Kumar vs Panch Oswal Jain Pedhi Shivganj

Farjand Ali, J

The instant Civil First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been instituted by the appellant-defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No.13/2020, whereby the suit instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs came to be decreed and the reliefs pertaining to declaration of ownership, recovery of possession of the disputed property and damages were granted in their favour.

The respondents-plaintiffs, a duly registered society possessing juristic status and competency to sue, instituted the suit with the averment that a resolution had been duly passed by the society authorising initiation of the present proceedings. It was pleaded that the suit property had originally been purchased through the erstwhile officers of the Princely State of Sirohi and, in pursuance thereof, Patta No.105 dated 10.04.1900 came to be issued in respect of the said property.

2.1 It was further averred that the property belongs to the respondents-plaintiffs-society, upon which a well had been constructed several years ago along with two rooms and an orchard. On the strength of the aforesaid assertions, the suit seeking declaration of ownership, recovery of possession and mesne profits came to be instituted for the cause of action as pleaded that the appellant-defendant had unlawfully interfered with and occupied the suit property despite having no semblance of right, title or interest therein.

2.2 Upon notice, the appellant-defendant entered appearance and submitted their written statement denying and disputing the material averments contained in the plaint. Objections with regard to maintainability of the suit and entitlement of the plaintiff to the reliefs claimed were also raised.

2.3 On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed six issues for adjudication, while Issue No.7 pertained to relief. Thereafter, upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the learned Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs vide the impugned judgment and decree.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order passed by the learned court below.

This Court notices that an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC was preferred by the appellant-defendant inter alia on the ground that the suit was barred by law and, therefore, liable to be rejected. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 31.05.2025. However, while rejecting the said application, the learned trial Court, on its own motion, framed an additional issue and the onus thereof was cast upon the appellant-defendant. For the ready reference, the issue framed by the Court vide order dated 31.05.2025 is reproduced herein below: -

4.1 During the course of hearing, a pointed query was put collectively to the learned counsel appearing for the parties as to whether the aforesaid additional issue was ever adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court. Fairly enough, it could not be disputed, even by the respondents-plaintiffs, that though the issue was framed, the same was neither discussed nor adjudicated in the impugned judgment and decree. It appears that the said issue inadvertently escaped the attention of the learned trial Court altogether.

Adjudication vis-à-vis Consequential Formality

At this juncture, it would be apposite to observe that under the mandate of Order XX Rule 5 CPC, the Court is obligated to state its finding or decision, with reasons therefor, upon each and every issue framed in the suit.

5.1 At this juncture, it would be apposite to observe that there exists a marked distinction between a "judgment" and a "decree" within the scheme of the CPC. A judgment embodies the judicial consideration, adjudication and determination of the issues arising between the parties together with the reasons which persuaded the Court to arrive at its conclusions based upon the evidence, oral or documentary, produced by the parties and the applicable legal position. It is the soul of the adjudicatory process reflecting conscious application of judicial mind upon the controversies brought before the Court. A judgment does not come into existence merely by recording a final conclusion or by mechanically disposing of a suit. It is formed through comprehensive adjudication of all the issues framed by the Court upon due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the assertions made in the plaint, the defence set up in the written statement, rebuttals and sur-rebuttals, wherever permissible in law, together with the oral and documentary evidence brought on record in support thereof and in light of the statutory provision prevailing in the matter. The entire procedural architecture contemplated under Orders VI, VII and VIII CPC ultimately culminates into framing of issues and separate adjudication of each issue, and it is only upon conscious determination of all such issues that a judicial determination matures into a "judgment" in the eye of law.

5.2 There is, however, a limited departure engrafted in the scheme of the provision by way of a rider that where determination of any one or more of the issues is by itself sufficient for disposal of the suit and for bringing the entire controversy to a quietus, the Court is not mandatorily required to record independent findings upon every remaining issue. The legislative intent behind such departure is founded upon the principle that once an issue touching the very root of the matter conclusively determines the maintainability or survivability of the suit itself, adjudication upon the remaining ancillary issues would be rendered wholly academic and unnecessary. Illustratively, where an issue pertains to the suit being barred by limitation, res judicata or any statutory interdiction; or where the controversy stands concluded on the issue of maintainability of the suit, absence of cause of action, lack of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction; or where the Court arrives at a conclusion that the suit is ex facie frivolous, vexatious or manifestly untenable in law, adjudication upon such foundational issue alone may legitimately suffice for final disposal of the lis. In such circumstances, once the Court records its determination upon that issue which completely eclipses the surviving controversy between the parties, no further adjudication on the remaining issues would be legally warranted.

5.3 Nevertheless, even in such a situation, the judgment cannot remain conspicuously silent with respect to the issues left undecided. Judicial discipline and the mandate underlying a reasoned adjudication require the Court to expressly observe that since adjudication upon the particular issue or issues has conclusively and effectively determined the suit in its entirety, findings upon the remaining issues are not being returned for want of necessity. Likewise, where out of several framed issues, adjudication upon a few issues alone is sufficient to finally dispose of the suit, the Court is expected to specifically record that the determination of those issues fully concludes the controversy and, therefore, examination of the remaining issues is rendered unnecessary.

5.4 What is impermissible in law is a situation where the framed issues are altogether ignored without even a semblance of consideration or judicial indication regarding their non-adjudication. A judgment which neither addresses the issues nor discloses reasons as to why certain issues were left undecided ceases to answer the legal conception of a complete judgment. Such an adjudication would suffer from the vice of incompleteness and would fall short of the essential attributes of a judgment contemplated under the scheme of the Code, for a judgment is not merely a conclusion but a conscious judicial determination reflecting application of mind to the controversies arising between the parties.The issues framed by the Court are not ornamental recitals nor procedural formalities liable to be ignored at convenience. Each issue represents a material point of controversy requiring adjudication between the parties and, therefore, every such issue necessarily demands a finding supported by reasons. Adjudication of all the framed issues is thus the sine qua non for constituting a complete and legally sustainable judgment. Where even one material issue remains untouched or unanswered, the adjudicatory exercise remains incomplete and the decision rendered loses the character of a complete judgment contemplated under law.

5.5 A decree, on the other hand, is merely the formal expression of the conclusive adjudication embodied in the judgment. In essence, the decree draws its life, sanctity and existence from the judgment itself. While the judgment contains the reasoning and findings on the issues, the decree simply crystallizes the ultimate result flowing therefrom in executable form. Thus, unless the issues framed in the suit stand duly adjudicated upon and answered by the Court, the decision cannot be said to have matured into a complete "judgment" in the eye of law. Mere preparation of a decree absent adjudication of a material issue cannot cure the foundational defect because the formal expression of adjudication cannot survive independent of the adjudication itself. Where an issue remains unanswered, the judgment remains inherently incomplete and consequently the decree founded thereupon also becomes legally vulnerable.

5.6 A judgment, in the eye of law, attains the character of a "judgment" only when the issues arising between the parties stand adjudicated upon whereas a decree is merely the formal expression of such adjudication. In absence of adjudication upon a material issue, the judgment suffers from a manifest infirmity striking at the very root of the adjudicatory process.

On the basis of the specifically raised by the appellant-defendant, the learned Trial Court framed a distinct issue with regard to the maintainability of the subsequent suit in light of the pendency of an earlier instituted suit between the same parties concerning the very same subject matter. The additional issue admittedly remained unaddressed and unanswered. The said issue was not merely ancillary or incidental in nature, but constituted a foundational and vital issue striking at the very root of the maintainability and continuance of the suit itself. An issue touching the bar created by law against continuation of a subsequent proceeding involving identical subject matter and parties is undoubtedly an issue going to the jurisdictional competence of the Court to entertain and proceed with the suit. Such an issue, therefore, required conscious judicial determination supported by cogent reasons and clear findings. In absence of a complete and meaningful adjudication upon such a material issue, the judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to satisfy the essential attributes of a lawful judgment contemplated under the scheme of the Code. In the present case, the aforesaid issue has remained substantially untouched and conspicuously unadjudicated. The learned Trial Court neither returned a clear finding thereupon nor disclosed any reason as to why adjudication of the said issue was considered unnecessary. Such omission goes to the very foundation of the adjudicatory process and renders the judgment legally vulnerable. Once a judgment itself fails to answer the requirement of a lawful and complete adjudication in the eye of law, any decree flowing therefrom, including the impugned money decree, cannot independently survive or claim legal sustainability. A decree being merely a formal expression of adjudication cannot stand on a foundation which itself suffers from the vice of incompleteness and non-consideration of a material issue going to the root of the matter. The impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in their present form and deserve to be set aside to the extent indicated hereinbelow.

Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed in the following terms: -

(i) The impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for fresh adjudication. However, the findings already recorded on the issues earlier adjudicated upon shall remain on record and shall not be independently reopened for the purpose of leading fresh evidence.

(ii) Insofar as the additional issue framed vide order dated 31.05.2025 is concerned, both the parties shall be afforded adequate opportunity to lead oral as well as documentary evidence confined thereto. The legal issue as regards the bar operating against a subsequent suit instituted between the same parties in respect of the very same subject matter and suit property deserves to be adjudicated in the backdrop of the settled canon of law governing such prohibition. The said aspect strikes at the very root of the maintainability of the proceedings and, therefore, warrants a conscious and comprehensive judicial determination in the light of the principles authoritatively settled by law. The learned trial Court shall thereafter hear the arguments of the parties afresh and decide the case.

(iii) The learned trial Court shall not confine itself merely to rendering an isolated finding on the additional issue alone, but then shall undertake a fresh and cumulative adjudication by harmoniously examining the findings on all the issues together with the evidence already available on record as also the evidence, if any, adduced pursuant to the present remand, and thereafter determine afresh as to whether the suit deserves to be decreed or dismissed.

7.1 It is further clarified that the observations and findings arrived at in the earlier judgment shall not influence the learned trial Court in any manner while undertaking the exercise of fresh adjudication. The matter shall be considered independently, objectively, strictly in accordance with law and must be based upon the fresh outcome of the adjudication of issues and its cumulative impact.

Since the present remand has occasioned solely on account of an omission attributable to the learned trial Court, therefore the appellant-defendant cannot be made to suffer the loss of court fee for an error of the Court, thus Court fee paid by the appellant-defendant for filing the present appeal shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.

The question relating to award or denial of mesne profits shall also remain open and shall be dependent upon the final judgment to be rendered by the learned trial Court as directed herein above.

The impugned judgment and decree passed earlier in relation thereto, inconsistent with the present directions, shall be treated as non est in the eye of law.

The learned trial Court is expected to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

In view of the above, the instant civil first appeal is disposed of. Decree be prepared accordingly.

Stay applications, if any, stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.