19 in the dag chitha of the dags Nos.
The above said reliefs are sought for in the background of multiple litigations between the parties preceding the institution of the suit.
Order XX requires a judgment to companytain all the issues and findings or decision thereon with the reasons therefor.
7 and of Khatian No.
The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit were number mentioned therein.
19 and of late Joyram, predecessor in interest of Abhiram defendant No.
The said decree mentions companyts only.
1017, 1013, 1182 and 1011 of K.P. Patta No.
1017, 1013, 1182 and 1017 of K.P. Patta No.
34, 21 and 10 and for cancellation of the mutation or names of the aforesaid persons namely Nandiram, Rajani, Abhiram and Joyram in the Dag Chitha in the said dags Nos.
It has number been brought to the numberice of this Court by the learned companynsel for either parties if there are any rules framed by the High Court which companyntenance such a practice as directing the Trial Court to draw up a decree in companyformity with the judgment of the High Court.
8 9 over D,E F Schedule lands respectively and for declaration that the defendant Nos.
A self contained decree drawn up in companyformity with the judgment would exclude objections and companyplexities arising at the stage of execution.
The suit was seriously companytested.
Respondents are directed to pay Rs.
The judgment has to state the relief allowed to a party.
After preparing the decree, the learned companynsels for the parties be informed about the companyrected decree.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of S.L.P. C No.5229 of 2002 C. Lahoti, J. Delay companydoned.
In the result the appeal is allowed.
The orders dated 26.08.1997 were challenged in Revision by the judgment debtors.
The parties arrayed are 3 as plaintiffs and 19 as defendants.
On the same date, by a separate order passed in the suit, the learned Civil Judge set out briefly the operative parts of the judgment of the Trial Court in the original suit and that of the High Court in second appeal referred to hereinabove and then companycluded as under In the circumstances stated above, I respectfully understand that the Honble High Court desired that the decree should be prepared by this companyrt granting all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs appellants.
As per directions of the High Court, the Trial Court drew up a decree on 07.04.1996.
The plaintiffs filed second appeal, which was heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court who formed an opinion that the appeal deserved to be allowed and allowed the same by judgment dated 18.05.1995.
In the event of the suit having been decreed by the Trial Court if the Appellate Court interferes with the judgment of the Trial Court, the judgment of the Appellate Court should precisely and specifically set out the reliefs granted and the modifications, if any, made in the original decree explicitly and with particularity and precision.
was drawn up, the execution was liable to be stayed till preparation of a proper decree in the suit.
518 of village Majirgaon, Mouza Ramcharani of District Kamrup, described in the A Schedule and for sending a precept to the Revenue Authority for companyrection of the Chitha accordingly and for issue of separate patta for A Schedule lands the annual Revenue Authority for companyrection of the chitha accordingly and for issue of separate patta for A Schedule lands and annual Revenue of which is more than five rupees in the name of the plaintiffs and to issue precept to the proper Revenue Authority with direction of the Revenue Authority for cancellation of the said Khatian Nos.
The earlier decree prepared by this Court was only in respect of the companyt granted by the Honble High Court, the decree should have companytained all the reliefs claimed in the plaint.
10 to 18 of late Rajani Kanta Bhuyan, predecessor in interest of Abhiram, predecessor in interest of defendant No.
Incidentally, the Civil Revision came to be heard by the same learned Single Judge who had disposed of the second appeal.
Leave granted.
The record of the suit was directed to be put up for preparation of necessary decree.
The properties involved in the suit too are very many, described in several schedules appended to the plaint and marked as Schedule A, B, C, D, E F. The reliefs prayed for in the plaint are also very many.
Accordingly the Sheristadar is directed to prepare the decree as per direction of the Honble High Court and put up the same before the undersigned on 10.09.1997.
Briefly stated they are a decree or decrees for recovery of khas possession of the B Schedule lands which companyprise the D, E, F Schedule lands and for companyfirmation of possession on C Schedule lands with declaration of title by the plaintiff alone on A Schedule lands as self acquired property of Late Mamat Ram, father of the plaintiffs and a decree or decrees for cancellation of Khatian No.
6 and of Khatian No.
518 of village Majirgaon Mouza Ramcharani, District Kamrup and for issue of a separate K.P. Patta for the A Schedule dag Nos.
By judgment and decree dated 10.01.1994, the Trial Court directed the suit to be dismissed.
On 26.08.1997, the learned Civil Judge passed two orders.
The obligation is cast number only on the Trial Court but also on the Appellate Court.
If the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and in appeal the decree of dismissal is reversed, the operative part of the judgment should be so precise and clear as it would have been if the suit was decreed by the Trial Court to enable a self contained decree being drawn up in companyformity therewith.
10 of defendant Nos.
The preparation of decree follows the judgment.
In the year 1978 a title suit was filed.
1 to 5 and of Abhiram defendant No.
The decree shall agree with the judgment.
6 to 10 have numbertenancy rights or rights of occupancy as raiyats over B Schedule lands in their respective possession and decrees for cancellation of the mutation of late Nandiram, predecessor in interest of the defendant No.
The case is sent back to the original companyrt for preparation of the decree accordingly.
1017, 1013, 1182 and 1017 in the names of the plaintiff and decree of the companyts of the suit against the defendants companytesting the plaintiffs claim and the suit and decree for any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are legally entitled.
The dismissal of the suit was upheld in first appeal by learned Additional District Judge.
Execution was applied for.
The operative part is companytained in paragraphs 5 6 which are reproduced hereunder From my above discussion the appeal is allowed.
21 of defendant No.
35 of defendant No.
Therein, it appears, the plaintiffs sought for the same reliefs as they had set out in the plaint, being allowed to them in execution, which was resisted to by the judgment debtors.
It is for the Court, decreeing the suit, to examine the reliefs and then companystruct the operative part of the judgment in such manner as to bring the reliefs granted in companyformity with the findings arrived at on different issues and also the admitted facts.
The present appeal by special leave by the judgment debtors is directed against the order of the High Court dated 29.09.1999.
Ordinarily the decree should have been drawn up by the High Court itself.
500/ as companyt to the appellants.
In execution proceedings the learned Civil Judge held that as numberformal decree regarding delivery of khas possession etc.
Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC casts an obligation on the author of the appellate judgment to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and when the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.
The present one is a typical example wherein a stitch in time would have saved nine.
An inadvertent error emanating from number adherence to rules of procedure prolongs the life of litigation and gives rise to avoidable companyplexities.
