Sathyanath & Anr. vs Sarojamani

HELD: 1.1 The provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC are part of the procedural law, but the fact remains that such procedural law had been enacted to ensure expeditious disposal of the lis and in the event of setting aside of findings on preliminary issue, the possibility of remand can be avoided, as was the language prior to the unamended Order XIV Rule 2. If the issue is a mixed issue of law and fact, or issue of law depends upon the decision of fact, such issue cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. In other words, preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision. Thus, if the Court lacks jurisdiction or there is a statutory bar, such issue is required to be decided in the first instance so that the process of civil court is not abused by the litigants, who may approach the civil court to delay the proceedings on false pretext. [Para 20][61G-H; 62-A-B]

1.2 The order of the High Court to direct the trial court to frame preliminary issue on the issue of res judicata is not desirable to ensure speedy disposal of the lis between parties. Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code had salutary object in mind that mandates the Court to pronounce judgments on all issues subject to the provisions of sub-Rule (2). However, in case where the issues of both law and fact arise in the same suit and the court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that suit first, if it relates to jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. It is only in those circumstances that the findings on other issues can be deferred. It is not disputed that res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact depending upon the pleadings of the parties, the parties to the suit etc. It is not a plea in law alone or which bars the jurisdiction of the Court or is a statutory bar under clause (b) of sub-Rule (2). [Para 31][66-EG]

1.3 The objective of the provisions of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 is that if evidence is recorded by the trial court on all the issues, it would facilitate the first appellate court to decide the questions of fact even by reformulating the issues. It is only when the first appellate court finds that there is no evidence led by the parties, the first appellate court can call upon the parties to lead evidence on such additional issues, either before the appellate court or before the trial court. All such provisions of law and the amendments are to ensure one objective i.e., early finality to the lis between the parties. [Para 32][66-G-H; 67-A]

1.4 Keeping in view the object of substitution of sub-Rule

(2) to avoid the possibility of remanding back the matter after the decision on the preliminary issues, it is mandated for the trial court under Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5, and for the first appellate court in terms of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 to record findings on all the issues. [Para 33][67-B]

1.5 The order of the High Court remanding the matter to the trial court to frame preliminary issues runs counter to the mandate of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code and thus, not sustainable in law. The trial court would record findings on all the issues so that the first appellate court has the advantage of the findings so recorded and to obliviate the possibility of remand if the suit is decided only on the preliminary issue. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 34 and 35][67-C-D] Jamia Masjid v. K.V. Rudrappa (Since Dead) by LRs. & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 792; Ramesh B. Desai and Ors. v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 638 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 414; Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dillon AIR 1964 SC 497 : [1964] SCR 409; Sunni Central Waqf Board and Ors. v. Gopal Singh Vishrad and Ors. AIR 1991 ALL 894; Prithvi Raj Jhingta & Anr. v. Gopal Singh & Anr. AIR 2007 HP 11; Hardwari Lal v. Pohkar Mal and Ors. AIR 1978 P&H 230;

Dhirendranath Chandra v. Apurba Krishna Chandra and Ors. AIR 1979 Pat 34; Usha Sales Ltd. v. Malcolm Gomes and Ors. AIR 1984 Bom 60; Smt. Aruna Kumari v. Ajay Kumar AIR 1991 J&K 1; Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by Lrs. v. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (Dead) by Lrs. & Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 272 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 350; Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480 : [2005] 3 SCR 289; Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam & Ors. (2012) 6 SCC 430 : [2012] 4 SCR 74; Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai & Anr. (2003) 1 SCC 488 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 260; Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 99 – referred to.