In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the handling of a civil case by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mainpuri.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra, presiding over the Second Appeal No. 541 of 2024, criticized the lower courts for failing to properly understand and adjudicate a counter-claim, highlighting serious lapses in judicial process and judgment writing.
Background of the Case:
The case, titled Shailendra @ Shankar Verma And Another vs. Vikas Verma And 3 Others, arose from a civil suit (Original Suit No. 423 of 2020) involving property disputes. The appellants, Shailendra @ Shankar Verma and another, challenged the dismissal of their counter-claim by the trial court. The plaintiffs’ suit was earlier dismissed for want of prosecution on March 4, 2022, and the order was never recalled. This second appeal was filed after the first appeal in the matter was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Court No. 2, Mainpuri.
Legal Issues Involved:
The key legal issues in this appeal pertain to the proper adjudication of a counter-claim in a civil suit and the adequacy of the reasoning and discussion required in judicial orders. The High Court admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Compliance with Legal Requirements for Counter-Claims: Whether the judgment of the trial court meets the requirements of deciding a counter-claim under Order 8 Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The court observed that the judgment lacked any discussion of facts, evidence, or a meaningful conclusion.
2. Consistency Between Trial and Appellate Judgments: Whether the first appellate court’s judgment, which incorrectly stated that the defendants’ counter-claim had been established by the trial court, is sustainable given that the counter-claim was actually dismissed.
Observations and Decision of the Court:
Justice Kshitij Shailendra delivered a scathing critique of both the lower courts. The High Court noted that:
“Both the courts below have completely failed to discharge their obligations respectively as civil court and first appellate court and have treated judgment writing as a mere formality.”
The court emphasized that neither the trial court nor the first appellate court seemed to understand the provisions governing counter-claims or the proper procedure for dealing with them. It further remarked that the trial court’s judgment did not mention any evidence or reasoning for its conclusion, rendering the decision inadequate. Similarly, the first appellate court’s assertion that the counter-claim was established was contrary to the trial court’s findings, showing a lack of understanding of the case proceedings.
Despite the severe criticism, the High Court exercised restraint by refraining from recommending judicial training for the erring judges, though it did direct the District Judge, Mainpuri, to look into the matter to ensure better handling of litigation involving civil rights.
Court’s Directions:
The High Court admitted the appeal, issued notices to the respondents, and directed the appellants to take steps for service by registered post within two weeks. It also summoned the records of both the trial and appellate courts. Until further orders, the court directed all parties to maintain the status quo regarding the nature, possession, and constructions over the property in dispute and prohibited the creation of any third-party rights without the court’s permission.
The appellants were represented by Counsel Rajneesh Tripathi. The judgment was delivered by Justice Kshitij Shailendra of the Allahabad High Court.
