Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing learned Civil Judge (S.D.) North, Court No.25, District and Sessions Court, Sultanpur to decide Regular Suit No.267 of 1997 (Fayadeen v. Ambika Prasad Pandey), as expeditiously as possible within a period stipulated by the court.
A perusal of the copy of order sheet, contained as Annexure No.2 shows that the suit was filed on 24.02.1997 and written statement has also been filed. The learned Trial Court framed issues on 24.11.2005 and decided issue no.2 (of valuation) on the same day. Under order 14 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure guidelines for framing of issues have been given, which is reproduced below:-
"1. Framing of issues.-(1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other.
(2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.
(3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party denied by the other shall form the subject of distinct issue.
(4) Issues are of two kinds :
(a) issues of fact,
(b) issues of law.
(5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and 1[after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders], ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend.
(6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence."
Order 8 Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure reproduced as under:-
"3. Denial to be specific: It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.
4. Evasive denial: Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances.
5. Specific denial: [(1)] Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability :
Provided that the Court may in it discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.
[(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved.
(3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader.
(4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.]"
Order 8, Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been reproduced above with a view to impress upon the learned Trial Court to frame issues only when there is a material dispute between the parties, which is specifically apparent on the face of the record. Mere denial or evasive denial does not give rise to an issue. In view of this fact, issue once framed cannot be decided, the same day, as affording of opportunity of hearing to the parties, is mandatory. "Hearing" means and includes leading of evidence, which has to be initiated by the parties at whose instance or upon whose pleadings issues have been settled. In this case learned Trial Court has settled the issues on 24.11.2005 and issue no.2 was decided on the same day, and the suit is not being proceeded in accordance with the procedures, as laid down by the law for the time being in force. Learned Trial Court is adjourning the case on false pretexts.
In either case, writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 26.11.2012 Ram.