(Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.11 of 2008, on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli.)

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. The defendants in O.S.No.171 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli, are the appellants herein.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant/second defendant died, and his legal representatives were brought on record as the 3rd to 6th appellants.

3. O.S.No.171 of 2008 had been filed by the respondents seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 07.12.2006, along with a direction to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. The appellants herein, who were defendants in the suit, contested the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs and filed a written statement raising several grounds, namely:-

                     (i) That the agreement was a forgery;

                     (ii) That the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties;

                     (iii) That the second defendant had no interest in the suit schedule property and, therefore, could not enter into the agreement;

                     (iv) That no resolution was passed by the first defendant granting permission to enter into the said agreement;

                     (v) That the property description in the agreement was incorrect, as it was mentioned to be vacant land, whereas multiple buildings existed on the land; and

                     (vi) That the sale consideration was inadequate and far below the prevailing market rate.

4. By judgment dated 18.12.2017, the suit was decreed with costs, thereby, necessitating the filing of the present appeal.

5. Mr.N.Ananda Padmanaban, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants raised a significant ground, drawing our attention to the judgment of the Trial Court and contending that there is no indication therein that issues had ever been framed and answered by the learned Trial Judge.

6. We perused the original judgment under appeal, bearing the signature of the learned Trial Judge and dated 18.12.2017. After the cause title on the first page, the averments of the plaint are recorded on Pages 2 and 3, while the averments of the written statement appear on Pages 3 to 6. In Paragraph 5 on Page 6, the learned Trial Judge briefly noted the evidence adduced by P.W.1 and P.W.2, and discussed the evidence in Paragraphs 6 and 7. Finally, in the last paragraph, the judgment declares that the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs. The judgment further notes that the defendants did not tender oral evidence, though they had cross-examined the plaintiffs' witnesses. They were set ex parte.

7. We are constrained to observe that, in the absence of findings on issues, the judgment of the Trial Court cannot be considered a judgment in the eye of law. The Code of Civil Procedure mandates that issues must be framed on material propositions of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Upon perusal of the records, we note that fair issues were, in fact, framed by the predecessor Judge on 24.01.2012.

8. While framing of issues was carried out, it is imperative that each issue be answered with a specific finding. Order XIV, Rule 1, C.P.C. provides for the necessity to frame issues, and Order XIV, Rule 2, C.P.C. requires that the Court pronounce judgment on all issues so framed. In the instant case, the Trial Court has failed to comply with these statutory requirements.

9. In Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple vs. Meenakshi Ammal and others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 624, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:-

                     ''15. ...... It is trite that the obligation and duty to frame issues is cast solely on the court which may, nevertheless, elicit suggestions from the litigating adversaries before it. Issues settled by the court under Order 14 CPC constitute the crystallisation of the conflict or the distillation of the dispute between the parties to the lis, and are in the nature of disputed questions of fact and/or of law. While discharging this primary function, the court is expected to peruse the pleadings of the parties in order to extract their essence, analyse the allegations of the parties and the contents of the documents produced by them, and, thereafter, proceed to frame the issues.''

10. Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. is as follows:-

                     ''ORDER XIV

                     Settlement of Issues and Determination of Suit on Issues of Law or on Issues Agreed upon

                     2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.—(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.

                     (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to-

                     (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or

                     (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.''

11. In the instant case, although issues had been framed, they are neither reflected in the judgment nor answered. It appears that the learned Trial Judge was either oblivious to the fact that issues had been framed or was not fully cognizant of the procedure to frame and decide issues.

12. Under Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C., the Court is required to state its decision on each issue. The said provision reads as follows:-

                     ''Order XX

                     Judgement and decree

                     5.Court to state its decision on each issue.—In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit.''

13. We concur with the arguments advanced by Mr.N.Ananda Padmanaban, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, that the failure to answer each issue necessitates remanding the matter to the Trial Court. The Trial Court must adjudicate the evidence on record in a proper manner, analyze the same, and give a finding on each issue already framed.

14. We have also heard Mr.K.Shanagar Murali, learned counsel for the respondents. However, even upon careful perusal of the judgment, he was unable to point out the issues that had been framed and answered therein.

15. Even if the defendants did not tender oral evidence, they had filed a written statement and had cross-examined the plaintiffs' witnesses. Therefore, where issues are framed based on facts asserted and denied, the Court is obliged to answer each issue and determine whether the plaintiffs have proved the averments made in the plaint. The Court must also consider the documents produced, provided they are admissible in law, proved in accordance with legal procedure, and relevant to the facts in issue.

16. In the instant case, the judgment merely narrates the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses. The learned Trial Judge proceeded to decree the suit as prayed for, notwithstanding substantial questions raised by the defendants in their written statement and during cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses.

17. A perusal of the case papers reveals a highly unsatisfactory conduct of proceedings. The suit was initially dismissed for default on 19.12.2011, as the plaintiffs' witness did not appear to tender evidence. The suit was later restored on 26.03.2014, and the matter was opened for trial on 16.06.2014. During the course of the trial, Interlocutory Applications were filed, and P.W.1 was crossexamined. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought repeated adjournments to examine further witnesses, and P.W.2 was examined only after considerable delay. The evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was finally closed on 08.06.2016, and the matter was posted for the defendants' evidence on 15.06.2016.

18. On that day, there was no representation for the defendants, and the learned Trial Judge proceeded to close the evidence and post the matter for arguments. Considering that the plaintiffs were granted over two years to examine their witnesses, it was manifestly unreasonable to close the defendants' evidence on the very first day it was listed. Thereafter, an Interlocutory Application was filed and remained pending for more than a year. The matter meandered through arguments and it was finally noted on 11.09.2017 that the defendants had also filed written arguments. The matter was posted for judgment on 30.10.2017, but was suo motu re-opened for clarification, adjourned for two separate hearings, and then listed for judgment on four further occasions. Finally, the judgment was pronounced on 18.12.2017 without recording that issues had been framed or answering any of the issues.

19. The procedure followed by the learned Trial Judge is, therefore, extremely unsatisfactory. In the aforementioned circumstances, without even entering into the merits of the averments in the plaint or written statement, it is clear that the parties must be afforded an opportunity to present arguments before the Trial Court on the evidence already available on record. A proper judgment must be written, addressing each issue that was framed. The judgment under appeal cannot, in any view, be regarded as a valid judgment.

20. We note from the records that a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1486 of 2017, by order dated 28.08.2017, had upheld the order of the Trial Court setting the defendants ex parte. In view of this fact, and since that order had attained finality, we are of the view that the matter must be remanded to the Trial Court at the stage of examining the evidence already on record. The Trial Court must answer each of the issues framed and pronounce a fresh judgment.

21. In view of the foregoing, we are inclined to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 18.12.2017 and remit the matter back for fresh consideration. The Trial Court shall re-examine the evidence already on record, consider the written arguments already submitted, and, if necessary, hear arguments from both the respondents/plaintiffs and appellants/defendants. The Trial Court shall answer all the issues framed on 24.01.2012 and pronounce a judgment in accordance with law.

22. In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 18.12.2017 are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and adjudication on all issues already framed. The parties to appear before the Trial Court on 18.12.2025. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.