Judgments must provide issue-wise findings as mandated by procedural rules; failure to do so constitutes legal impropriety and invalidates the judgment.

ORDER :

Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The justice based on truth would establish peace in the society. For the common man truth and justice are synonymous. So, when truth fails, justice fails. People would have faith in Courts when truth alone triumphs.

Framing of issues is a critical step in this voyage of discovery of truth. Framing of appropriate issues ensures efficient trial and a right conclusion.

Framing of issues is probably the most crucial aspect of the trial of a civil suit. For a correct and accurate decision in the shortest possible time in a case, it is necessary to frame the correct and accurate issues. Inaccurate and incorrect issues may kill the valuable time of the case. If correct and accurate issues are not framed, it will lead to grave injustice, delay and waste of the Court’s valuable time in deciding the matter.

What would be the effect of a judgment, if it is not based on the separately framed issues along with the findings on the same, and it is passed without deciding those issues? This is the core question of law which is required to be decided in this case.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Bharatpur (for short “SDO”) whereby the suit filed by the respondents has been decreed and the legal heirs have been declared as khatedars.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners submitted first and second appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, “the RAA”) and the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) respectively. However, both the appropriate authorities rejected the appeals vide orders dated 30.09.2013 and 15.12.2017 respectively.

3. Counsel submits that a suit under Sections 88 , 89 & 188 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 was submitted by the plaintiff- respondent against the present petitioners before the Court of SDO, which was resisted by the petitioners by way of submitting written statement and based on the pleadings of the parties, the SDO framed as many as 7 issues. However, in the impugned judgment, no issue-wise findings have been recorded, as per the provisions contained under Order XX Rule 5 CPC and the judgment was passed in a cursory manner by which the suit, filed by the plaintiff-respondent, was decreed without proper adjudication.

4. Counsel submits that this fact has been overlooked by both the First and Second Appellate Courts, hence, the judgment suffers from legal infirmity and the same has been passed in utter violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Order XX Rule 5 CPC. Hence, interference by this Court is warranted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned SDO framed as many as seven issues. Instead of deciding the suit issue-wise, the learned SDO decided the suit by recording a cogent finding which has been upheld by both the First and Second Appellate Courts. Counsel further submits that on the basis of the judgments passed by all the three Courts, the mutation has been entered in the name of the respondents. Therefore, at this stage, interference by this Court is not warranted.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on record.

7. The scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, from the stage of pleadings, after the appearance of th