9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1492 - SC - Indian LawsFraming of issue of res judicata as preliminary issue - Order XIV Rule 2 of I B Code - HELD THAT - The amended provision of Order XIV came up for consideration before the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in a judgment reported as Sunni Central Waqf Board and Ors. v. Gopal Singh Vishrad and Ors. 1990 (8) TMI 417 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT It was held that material changes had been brought about by substituting Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code. The word shall in the unamended provision has been replaced by the word may in the substituted provision, therefore, it is now discretionary for the Court to decide the issue of law as a preliminary issue, or to decide it along with the other issues. It was further held that even all issues of law cannot be decided as preliminary issues and only those issues of law falling within the ambit of clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 could be decided. A Single Bench of Bombay High Court in a judgment reported as Usha Sales Ltd. v. Malcolm Gomes and Ors. 1983 (6) TMI 207 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that after the amendment, a duty is cast upon the Court that it must proceed to hear all the issues and pronounce the judgment on the same, except that the Court may try an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Court or to the legal bar to the suit as a preliminary issue. It was held to be more in the nature of discretion rather than a duty. The provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 are part of the procedural law, but the fact remains that such procedural law had been enacted to ensure expeditious disposal of the lis and in the event of setting aside of findings on preliminary issue, the possibility of remand can be avoided, as was the language prior to the unamended Order XIV Rule 2. If the issue is a mixed issue of law and fact, or issue of law depends upon the decision of fact, such issue cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. In other words, preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision. Thus, if the Court lacks jurisdiction or there is a statutory bar, such issue is required to be decided in the first instance so that the process of civil court is not abused by the litigants, who may approach the civil court to delay the proceedings on false pretext. The objective of the provisions of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 is that if evidence is recorded by the learned Trial Court on all the issues, it would facilitate the first Appellate Court to decide the questions of fact even by reformulating the issues. It is only when the first Appellate Court finds that there is no evidence led by the parties, the first Appellate Court can call upon the parties to lead evidence on such additional issues, either before the Appellate Court or before the Trial Court. All such provisions of law and the amendments are to ensure one objective i.e., early finality to the lis between the parties - Keeping in view the object of substitution of sub-Rule (2) to avoid the possibility of remanding back the matter after the decision on the preliminary issues, it is mandated for the trial court under Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5, and for the first appellate court in terms of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 to record findings on all the issues. The order of the High Court remanding the matter to the learned trial court to frame preliminary issues runs counter to the mandate of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code and thus, not sustainable in law. The learned trial court shall record findings on all the issues so that the first appellate court has the advantage of the findings so recorded and to obliviate the possibility of remand if the suit is decided only on the preliminary issue - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata and estoppel. 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have abused the process of the court. 4. Whether the suit is not valued properly and the court fee paid is deficient. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Res Judicata and Estoppel: The primary challenge in the appeal was against the order directing the trial court to frame a preliminary issue on whether the suit is barred by res judicata. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and an injunction against the defendant, their paternal aunt. The defendant initially filed for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 but was dismissed. Subsequently, an application was filed to frame preliminary issues, including res judicata and estoppel. The trial court dismissed this application, but the High Court directed the framing of res judicata as a preliminary issue. The Supreme Court analyzed the amended Order XIV Rule 2, which mandates courts to pronounce judgment on all issues to avoid delays and remands. The Court reiterated that res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact and should not be decided as a preliminary issue unless it solely pertains to jurisdiction or a statutory bar. 2. Limitation: The issue of whether the suit is barred by limitation was also raised by the defendant. The Supreme Court emphasized that issues of law and fact should be decided together to avoid piecemeal trials and potential remands. The Court cited various judgments, including Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dillon and Ramesh B. Desai, to support the view that issues of law intertwined with facts should not be decided preliminarily. 3. Abuse of Process: The defendant contended that the plaintiffs had abused the process of the court. The Supreme Court held that procedural laws are meant to aid justice and not to obstruct it. The Court cited several judgments, including Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra and Kailash v. Nanhku, to emphasize that procedural rules should advance the cause of justice and not lead to injustice. The Court stressed that all issues should be decided together to ensure a comprehensive resolution and avoid unnecessary delays. 4. Valuation and Court Fee: The defendant also argued that the suit was not properly valued and the court fee paid was deficient. The Supreme Court reiterated that all issues, including those related to valuation and court fees, should be decided together. The Court emphasized that procedural laws are designed to ensure expeditious disposal of cases and prevent abuse of judicial processes. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing the framing of a preliminary issue on res judicata. The Court mandated that the trial court should record findings on all issues to facilitate a comprehensive resolution and avoid potential remands. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court was directed to ensure that all issues are addressed in the judgment to expedite the finality of the litigation.
|
