The failure to frame issues and record evidence in a contested suit violates procedural mandates, necessitating quashing of the impugned order.

ORDER :

1. An independent and efficient judiciary is the bedrock of any democracy. In India, the increasing complexity of legal disputes, burgeoning caseloads and evolving dimensions of justice delivery have necessitated continuous judicial education.

A robust, independent and efficient judiciary is indispensable to a functioning democracy. In India, the judiciary and quasi judicial authorities play a pivotal role in upholding the Constitutional value, thereby safeguarding rights and ensuring justice. However, with increasing caseloads, the emergence of complex issues and fast-changing socio-economic landscape, the role of a Judicial Officer or a Presiding Officer has evolved far beyond traditional legal interpretation. Such Officers are often required to interpret and apply laws that are not only voluminous but also dynamic.

Judicial behavior is as crucial as judicial knowledge. Judicial Training ensures that Officers are well versed with the current legal developments, helping them to deliver timely and just decisions. A Judge’s conduct influences public perception of the judiciary. Training programs focuses on ethical standards, impartiality and sensitivity.

2. This Court is constrained to observe that the instant case is a classic and glaring textbook example of obstination exhibited by the Revenue Courts, who often overlook and bypass the procedure laid down for deciding the suit, and then they also justify their in-action for doing so.

3. In the instant writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahwa, District Dausa (for short, ‘the SDO’) by which a suit for partition and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff- respondent- Om Prakash (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”)has been decreed without framing the issues and also without recording the evidence of both sides. The aforesaid order was assailed by the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) before the first and second Appellate Court by way of filing first and second appeal, however the same were also rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, ‘the RAA’) and the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’) vide judgments dated 07.12.2021 and 11.11.2024 respectively.

4. Counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendant wherein the defendant resisted the suit and submitted written statement and denied the averrments made in the plaint, however, the remaining defendants did not submit any written statement. Counsel submits that their opportunity of filing the written statement was closed on the very same day and the impugned order has been passed and the suit filed by plaintiff has been decreed, without framing any issue and also without recording the evidence of either side. Counsel submits that in order to decide a suit, which is contested by the parties, it is the bounden duty of the Court to frame issues in accordance with Order 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, ‘the CPC ’) based on the pleadings of the parties. Once the issues are framed, the burden of proof must be allocated on the party concerned accordingly, followed by the recording of evidence. The suit should then be decided based of the evidence so recorded by the Court. But, in the instant case, without following the above mandatory process, straightway the impugned order has been passed by the SDO, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5