Failure to frame points for determination in accordance with Order XX, Rule 4 C.P.C. renders the judgment illegal and perverse.

Aditya Nath Mittal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. None present for the opposite parties in the revised call.

3. This revision has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2006, passed by the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.02 of 2000, by which the suit has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the learned court below has committed a manifest error of law in not framing the questions for determination in accordance with Order XX, Rule 4 C.P.C. It has also been submitted that the learned court below has also failed to appreciate the point that the revisionists were the owner of the building and not owner of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs-revisionists are the owner landlord of the construction and the defendants-respondents have paid rent to the plaintiffs-revisionists thereby admitting the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. It has also been submitted that the findings of learned court below are illegal, perverse and factually misconceived, therefore, they are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the case Akhil Kumar Jain vs. Smt. Sharda Devi and others reported in [ 2011 (29) LCD 910 ], in which it has been held that if the points for determination have not been framed then the said judgment is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon the case Pratap Raj Singh vs. Shiv Nath Khanna reported in 1984 (1) ARC 498, in which this Court has held as under: -

"In order to resolve this controversy, reference has to be made to decisions of this Court. In Ram Nath Tulsi Ram v. Salig Ram, AIR All. 399 this court observed that an order passed by the Court of Small Causes in amendable to the jurisdiction of higher court under Section 25 of the U.P. Small Cause Courts Act and in order to find out whether there has been a decision in accordance with law, it is necessary for the revising court to be satisfied that the Judge, Small Cause Court has come to the decision judicially. This court held that if the Judge did not determine all the issues and there is nothing on record to indicate that the Judge has considered all issues, there is no proper trial and the revising court has the jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment and decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Reliance was placed by this court on earlier decisions of this court in which it was held that the Judge Small Cause Court must indicate in his judgment that he has applied his judicious mind to the case. In the instant case, the trial court has only referred to the evidence of the plaintiff and has not discussed how the plaintiff's case is proved by the evidence so led. In M/s. Krishna Fine Art Printers v. Ram Chandra Sharma, 1979 ALJ 615 this again reiterated the view taken in Ram Nath Tulsi Ram v. Salig Ram (supra). On behalf of the opposite parties, a number of decisions rendered by other High Courts were cited which had taken rather a strict view of the provisions of Order XX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having regard to the view express by this court in the aforesaid decisions, it is obvious that the decision rendered by the trial court is incorrect as it does not give a reasoned judgment and does not comply with the requirements of Order XX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure."

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied upon the case Rameshwar Dayal vs. Banda (Dead) through His LRs and others reported in [1993 All.CJ. (Supreme Court) 597], in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: -

"Points for determination" referred to in Rule 4 (1) are obviously nothing but "issues" contemplated by Rules 1 and 3 of Order 14 of the Code. The present decision of the Small Cause Court which has not even stated the points for determination and given finding thereon, is obviously not a judgment within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of the Code. S