1963 (4) TMI 108 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity and interpretation of Order 36 and Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. Requirement for stating facts and specifying documents under Order 36, Rule 1(2) CPC.
3. Procedure for hearing and determination of a special case under Order 36, Rule 5 CPC.
4. Misunderstanding and misapplication of the relevant rules by the District Judge.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and interpretation of Order 36 and Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):

The appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 21st March 1960 by the District Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 8 of 1958. The core issue is the interpretation of Section 90 and Order 36 of the CPC. Section 90 CPC empowers parties to state a case for the court's opinion, and the court must try and determine the case as prescribed. Order 36 outlines the trial and determination procedure. It was contended by the appellants that the District Judge misread and misunderstood these provisions, leading to the dismissal of their case.

2. Requirement for stating facts and specifying documents under Order 36, Rule 1(2) CPC:

Order 36, Rule 1(2) CPC mandates that every case stated must concisely state facts and specify documents necessary for the court to decide the question. The District Judge interpreted this to mean that all facts must be agreed upon by the parties, and no further investigation into facts was required. The appellants argued that this interpretation was incorrect and that the court should allow the parties to produce evidence to prove their respective cases.

3. Procedure for hearing and determination of a special case under Order 36, Rule 5 CPC:

Order 36, Rule 5 CPC provides that a special case should be set down for hearing as a suit instituted in the ordinary manner, and the provisions of the CPC apply to such suits. The District Judge held that the court should pronounce judgment based solely on the facts stated without further evidence. However, the appellants contended that Rule 5 requires the case to be heard and determined following the procedures in Order XVIII CPC, which includes the production of evidence by the parties.

4. Misunderstanding and misapplication of the relevant rules by the District Judge:

The District Judge's view that Rule 5 prohibits taking any evidence outside the stated facts was deemed erroneous. The court must follow the procedure prescribed by Order XVIII CPC, allowing parties to produce evidence. The learned Judge misunderstood the effect of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 1 and Rule 5 of Order 36 CPC. The judgment emphasized that the respective statements of fact made by the parties take the place of pleadings, and parties can prove their cases as put forward in the agreed statement.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the learned District Judge erred in dismissing the case without following the procedure prescribed by Order XVIII CPC. The judgment and decree of the District Judge were set aside, and the case was remanded to the District Court for disposal according to law. The costs of the appeal will abide by the result of the case, and the institution fees were ordered to be refunded to the appellants.