HC deprecates casual approach by lower courts while framing issues

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 17

Deprecating the casual approach adopted by the lower courts while framing issues in civil cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked them to apply “judicial mind” in the process. Justice Anil Kshetarpal has also rapped Ambala courts for not addressing the “real” concern involved in a case.

Taking up a regular second appeal in a land matter, Justice Kshetarpal asserted the High Court had repeatedly requested the trial courts to apply their judicial mind while framing issues.

It was an important step for determining the points arising between the parties for adjudication. While framing the issues, the court also placed onus to prove issues on the parties to the suit.

“After framing of issues, the parties come to know as to what is required to be proved by each of them. The casual approach of the courts in framing the issues is deprecated,” Justice Kshetarpal asserted.

The assertions came on an appeal filed by Swaran Singh and other appellants through counsel Fateh Saini. The case revolves around constructing, selling, mortgaging or transferring 20 marlas in Ambala.

Justice Kshetarpal asserted the trial court, unfortunately, framed the issues without looking at the pleadings of the parties. The issues were not even in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Elaborating, Justice Kshetarpal asserted Order 14 of the Code made it clear that each material proposition affirmed by one party, but denied by the other, would form subject matter of a distinct issue. The issues were not to be framed on the basis of prayer made in the suit. But in the current case, the trial court committed this fundamental error while framing the issues. The First Appellate Court, too, accepted the appeal.

“This court finds that the judgments of both the lower courts have not even chosen to address the real issue involved in the case and adjudicate upon the same. In these circumstances, judgments of both the lower courts are set aside”.

Before parting with the case, Justice Kshetarpal remanded the case back to the trial court for examining the pleadings of the parties carefully before framing appropriate issues in accordance with Order 14.