2001(1) ALL MR 474


The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Rambhau Son Of Baburao Mohite

First Appeal No. 191 of 2000

16th September, 2000

Respondent Counsel: Shri. V. L. SOMALWAR

Civil P.C. (1908), S.96 - First appeal against decision of trial court - Suit for recovery of amount for construction work done - Required procedure not followed by court - Decree passed because defendants were absent - This fact not referred in order - No reference in entire order that issues were framed after pleadings were filed - No reference that evidence was adduced by plaintiff in support of his claim so as to entitle recovery of amount - Order being cryptic cannot be sustained - Case remanded for retrial. (Paras 1, 3)


Judgment :- This first appeal is taken up for hearing by consent of both the parties. This appeal takes exception to the order passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, dated December 23, 1999 in Special Civil Suit No. 1017 of 1992. The said suit was filed by the Respondent for recovery of Rs. 1,13,112.23 p. against the appellants for the alleged work done by him in the contract of construction of road. The trial Court has decreed the suit by assigning reasons only in one paragraph which reads thus :

"Relying on affidavit Exh. 27 and documents on record, court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has proved its case. For want of any specific agreement in respect of interest court is granting 6% simple interest. So also Rs. 125/- towards the notice charges making the decretal figure in round. Court is passing the following order.


1) Suit is decreed with costs.

2) Defendants are jointly and severally liable for amount of Rs. 1,13,112.23 along with 6% simple interest from 30-6-90 till its realization.

3) The said sum is made payable within 6 months.

4) Decree be drawn up accordingly.

Sd/- V. G. Bodhankar

3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Dn.


It is absolutely incomprehensible, when, the suit, which involves a claim for the amount of Rs. 1,13,000/-, can be disposed of in such a manner. The order is not only cryptic, but in my view, it does not even advert to the fact that the required procedure was not followed while disposing of the suit. The learned counsel for the Respondent contends that the decree has been passed because the defendants, who are appellants in this appeal, remained absent. However, the impugned order makes no reference to the said fact. There is no reference in the entire order that after the pleadings were filed and issues were framed, evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff in support of his claim so as to entitle the plaintiff for the recovery of the amount.

2. Taking any view of the matter, the decree in this appeal cannot be sustained in law.

3. In the circumstances, there is no option but to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand the case for retrial to the file of the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.

Needless to mention that, at least in future, the learned Judge would be well advised not to dispose of the suits involving high stakes or for that matter any suit, in such a cryptic and hasty manner.

Appeal allowed.