Not Providing Separate Findings On Every Issue Framed For Trial Violates Statutory Provisions Under CPC: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a Trial Court order wherein despite framing issues in the matter, no categorical issue-wise findings were recorded, and the judgment was given by recording a consolidated finding.

While underscoring the significance of the steps of framing of issues and terming the matter as “quite shocking and surprising”, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the judgment did not stand the judicial scrutiny as it was in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Order XX Rule 5 and Order XIV Rule 2, CPC.

Order XX, Rule 5, CPC and Order XIV, Rule 2, CPC, provides that the Court is to pronounce its decision on each issue. The High Court held,

"Framing of issues is probably the most crucial aspect of the trial of a civil suit...The provisions contained under Rule 5 of Order XX CPC is mandatory and it is the duty of the Court to record its findings on each and every issue separately. However, herein the instant case, the issues have not been decided separately, instead a common consolidated judgment has been passed against the aforesaid mandate of law."

A suit under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, was filed against the petitioners in which the trial court framed 7 issues. However, without giving any issue-wise findings, the judgment was passed in a cursory manner in favour of the respondents. When the same was challenged before the First and Second Appellate Courts, the judgment was upheld.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted the importance as well as the procedure related to issues as provided under CPC, and held that, “The purport of these provisions is that the trial Court after framing issues is supposed to give its finding or decision, with reason upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit…”

In this light, it was stated that in the present case, findings on any one or more of the issues was not sufficient for the decision of the suit. By merely describing the evidence and law, and giving the conclusion where case of one party was accepted and other's was rejected, it was not a judgment in the eyes of law.

“Therefore, by not deciding issues Nos. 1 to 7 separately by referring to material evidence on each issue for and against the parties and giving reasons for its acceptance or rejection, the impugned judgment is vitiated.”

Accordingly, the judgments by the trial court and the appellate courts were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial court to be decided afresh with findings being given on each issue separately.

The Court directed the fresh judgment to be passed within 6 months, in light of the matter pertaining to the year 2006.

Title: Darogi & Ors. v Chetram & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 291

Click Here To Read/Download Order