w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Akhil Kumar Jain v/s Sharda Devi


Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109JK2000PTC002046

Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098902

    Civil Revision No. 184 of 2011

    Decided On, 21 April 2011

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJES KUMAR

    For the Appearing Parties: Rama Goel Bansal, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. The revisionist is a tenant and defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff being Case No. 4 of 2009. The revisionist moved an application before the court below for framing of the issues. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 28th March, 2011 on the ground that it is not mandatory to frame issues in SCC case. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that Order XX, Rule 4 of the CPC provides that the judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than points for determination and the decision thereon. The word "Point for determination" has been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Dayal vs. Banda (dead) through his Legal Representatives and another, reported in 1993 ARC (I) 249 wherein it has been held that the "Point for determination" referred to in Rule 4(1) are obviously nothing but issues contemplated by Rules 1 and 3 of Order XIV of the Code. Therefore, before proceeding with the case, the issue ought to have been framed.

2. I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist. Order XX, Rule 4 provides that the judgment of the Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon. The Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Dayal vs. Banda (dead) through his Legal Representatives and another (supra) held as follows:-

"22."Point for determination" referred to in Rule 4(1) are obviously nothing but "issues" contemplated by Rules 1 and 3 of Order XIV of the Code. The present decision of the Small Causes Court which has not even stated the points for determination and given finding thereon, is obviously not a judgment within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Code. Since the matters were in controversy between the parties, it is only a judgment which could have given rise to a decree. The so-called decision of the Small Causes Court, therefore, dos not amount to decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) read with Section 2(9) and Rules 4(1) and 5 of Order XX of the Code."

The Apex Court held that the "points for determination" is nothing but the issues contemplated by Rules 1 and 3 of Order XIV. Before the Apex Court also, the case arose from the Judge, Small Causes Court. In view of the above, I am of the view that the issue should be framed before proceeding with the case and the view of the court below that it is not mandatory to frame issues in the SCC case is not correct. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order dated 28th March, 2011 is set aside. The court below is directed to

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

frame the issue and proceed accordingly. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondents to avoid the delay in the proceedings. However, in case if the respondents feel that they are aggrieved by this order, it is open to them to move the recalling application.
O R