Manoj S/O Ganpatlal Chamedia vs Hariom S/O Chaganlal Jaipuriya ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 289 Bom

     sa33.13.odt                                                                                    1/4


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY 
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                              
                         SECOND APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2013




                                                                    
              Manoj Ganpatlal Chamedia
              aged about 42 yrs., Occp. Agriculturist,
              r/o Sardar Chowk, Yeotmal,
              Tq. & Distt. - Yeotmal.          ::                              APPELLANT




                                                                   
                       -: Versus :-




                                                   
          1. Hariom Chaganlal Jaipuriya,
             aged about 63 yrs., Occp. Contractor,
                              
             r/o Marwari Chowk, Yavatmal,
             Tq. & Distt.- Yavatmal.
                             
          2. The Yavatmal Municipal Council,
             Yavatmal, through its Chief Officer,
             Yavatmal, Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal.     ::                           RESPONDENTS
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      


                        Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.
                      Shri D. M. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.2.
   



     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         CORAM :  A. P. BHANGALE, J.
                                          DATED  : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2015.





     J U D G M E N T 

J U D G M E N T

Admit.

2. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the

parties.

3. This appeal has challenged validity and legality of the

impugned judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal

No.45 of 2001 decided on 14/8/2012 whereby the first appeal

sa33.13.odt 2/4

was dismissed.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited

my attention to the contents of judgment in the first appeal. The

only point for determination was mentioned thus;

"Whether the impugned judgment and decree are

legal, proper and correct?"

5. The approach of the first appellate Court is criticized

on the ground that the rulings which were cited, were simply

listed in the judgment without commenting upon as to why those

rulings are cited, which submission was advanced in respect of

which ruling and whether the rulings were acceptable to the first

appellate Court or not. Further more, it appears that the first

appeal arose from the judgment and order passed in Special Civil

Suit No.11 of 1988. The final order, which was passed in the suit

reads thus;

"The plaintiff's suit for declaration, for

possessing and for inquiry into the mesne profits is

hereby in its entirety.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

Sd/- A.B. Patil Dt/-11.10.2000 (Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Yavatmal."

6. This order without head and tail shows non

application of mind by learned trial Judge. This was also

sa33.13.odt 3/4

overlooked by learned first appellate Judge. This is a fit case in

which we have to comment upon negligence by the trial Judge.

Before signing final order in the suit, casual approach was shown.

He has just signed the judgment and then final order without

application of judicious mind to the same. The same error was

repeated by learned first appellate Judge also. He simply listed

the rulings without commenting upon as to each of the ruling

whether it is attracted or not in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

7. In the circumstances, the parties will have to go

before the trial Court again to argue their respective submissions

on merits of the real controversy in the suit. Learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Yeotmal after judicious application of mind and

after hearing the parties once again upon additional evidence

adduced, if any, in respect of prayers in the suit, shall decide the

controversy between the parties on merits according to law.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and order

passed by the first appellate Court as well as the trial Court are set

aside. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court,

i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yeotmal within one month for

disposal of the case expeditiously on merits.

9. Copy of this judgment and order be sent to learned

trial Judge, who had passed final order in Special Civil Suit No. 11

sa33.13.odt 4/4

of 1988 and also the first appellate Judge concerned with a

direction that they shall be careful not to repeat such blunders

again. Such blunders do result in not only waste of precious

judicial time and money for the parties and Courts but also cause

harassment to the parties concerned. Second appeal allowed and

disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

wwl