HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5775/2012 1- Bhanwari Devi W/o Shri Bhauri Lal, aged about 55 years, 2- Ram Gopal S/O Shri Bhauri Lal, aged 37 years, 3- Raju S/o Shri Bhauri Lal aged 30 years, All R/o P. No. 21, Adarsh Basti, Street No. 4, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. 4- Manni Devi S/o Shri Bhauri Lal w/o Shri Chandalal, aged 38. years, R/o Ghasi Surajpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur 5- Choutu S/o Gyarsha, aged 55 years, R/o Village Dhartli, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur 6- Shyam Lal S/o Kedar Lal, aged 52 years, R/o P. No. 37-A, Braj Vatika, Mahal Road, Jagatpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. Board of Revenue, Ajmer 2-Nangram w/o Shivram, R/o Village Dhantli, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. 3. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Gurjar Mr. P.C. Bharti JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/09/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short “the Board”) by which the appeal submitted by the respondent No.2 against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short “RAA”) and 08.11.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur (for short “SDO”) has been allowed and the judgment and (2 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] decree dated 22.12.2008 passed by the RAA and judgment passed by the SDO dated 08.11.2007 have been quashed and set-aside and the parties have been directed to appear before the SDO and the SDO has been directed to decide the suit in terms of the provisions contained under Order XX Rule 5 CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short “the Act of 1955”) was submitted by the petitioners-plaintiffs against the respondent No.2, wherein the claim of the petitioners was admitted by the defendant-State, but the same was disputed by the respondent No.2 by way of filing written statement. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the SDO framed as many as eight issues, thereafter the respondent has failed to appear before the Trial Court and, accordingly, the suit filed by the petitioners has been decreed by recording cogent findings in favour of the petitioners, which has been assailed by the respondent No.2 before the RAA and the Board by way of filing first appeal and second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once the averment made in the plaint has remained unrepresented by the State and no evidence has been produced by the respondent No.2, the SDO has rightly decreed the suit filed by the petitioners and the Board has committed an error in remitting the matter unnecessarily to decide the suit afresh in terms of the provisions contained under Order XX Rule 5 CPC, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. (3 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that it is mandatory for the Trial Court to adhere to the provisions contained under Order XX Rule 5 CPC and decide the suit by recording issue-wise findings, but in the instant case, no such finding has been recorded issue-wise, but the Board has not committed any error in remitting the matter to the Trial Court, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Darogi & Others Versus Chetram & Others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17904/2018. 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 the parties, upto the stage of disposal of the suit by means of a judgment are very clearly defined from Order VI to Order XX of the C.P.C. Order VI deals with pleadings, Order VII deals with the plaint, Order VIII with the written statement and Order IX with the appearance of parties and the consequences of non-appearance. By the time of compliance up to Order IX of C.P.C., the pleadings are considered to be completed. At this stage, Order X comes into play. Under Order X, the Court is tasked with the responsibility to examine the parties’ pleadings to know whether the allegations in the pleadings are admitted or denied. For that purpose, there could be oral examination of the parties or their Pleader, substance of the (4 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] examination may be recorded and thereafter, the consequences of refusal or inability of the pleader to answer will be examined. Thereafter, there will be discovery and inspection of documents and facts by interrogatories etc. Then comes Order XIII of C.P.C. to explore the possibility of proof of facts by admission of parties. Order XIII C.P.C. would dispose of the stage of production of documents when they are not produced at the proper time either to condone the delay or not to condone the delay. Thus, from Order VI to Order XIII of C.P.C. the building up of records, conclusions on basic materials, subjection of the parties to the controversies and admissions, the discovery and inspection of facts and the production, impounding and the return of documents will be completed. It is only thereafter, that Order XIV of C.P.C. comes into play, which is the relevant provision for disposal of this case. The suit judicially proceeds with the direction to issue summons for settlement of issues or for final disposal. 8. Order XIV of C.P.C. deals with settlement of issues and determination of the suit on issues of law or issues agreed upon. The provisions in this Order enable the court and the parties to settle down to know the matters in controversy, put them in a proper form, fix the burden on the parties to prove the particular issues, then allow them to lead the evidence and thereafter decide the matter after trial, leading to the judgment. Interestingly enough, ‘issues’ are not defined in the Evidence Act, 1872, but ‘facts in issue’ is defined as follows: “Facts in issue” means and includes - any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other fact, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows; (5 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] Explanation:— Whenever under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue, is a fact in issue.” 9. A simple reading of this provision means, that facts in issue would be already existing between the parties when the pleadings are complete and the discovery and inspection of facts and documents are presented before the court. It is at that stage, the court would put such facts in issue in a particular form called “issues”. That is how Order XIV Rule 1 (1) explains ‘issues’ to mean— “Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.” 10. It is further explained in sub-clause (2) of Rule 1 of Order XIV that 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. That is how sub-clause (3) of Rule 1 of Order XIV declares that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other, shall form the subject of a distinct issue. Obviously as mentioned in sub-clause (4) of Rule 1 supra, there will be two categories of issues - (a) issues of fact and (b) issues of law. Sub- clause (5) of Rule 1 supra reads as follows: “At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and 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 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] (emphasis supplied). 11. On the face of it, there is a mandate in the rule. The court is bound to frame issues based on the pleadings. Rule 3 of Order XIV of C.P.C. gives a guideline as to the materials from which, issues may be framed, namely— (a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties, (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit, (c) the contents of documents produced by either party. 12. In other words when these materials are produced before the Court in accordance with the provisions stated supra, the Court is bound to frame the issues in accordance with guidelines under Order XIV Rule 1 to 4 and in accordance with the mandate under Order XIV Rule 5 of C.P.C. So far as the court is concerned, the duty to frame the issues is mandatory or obligatory. It appears that in such a situation, the definition of “facts in issue” under Section 2 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the meaning of “Issues” under Order XIV Rule 1 of C.P.C. should be read together to harmoniously understand that the facts in issue in each case arising out of such materials before the court should be subjected to specific forms of issues enumerating the controversies between the parties, and establishing the burden of the parties to prove such issues and the duty of the court to draw inference on the questions of law as issues of law. Therefore, in such a situation, failure to frame issues on the part of the court on the basis of the (7 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] pleadings, would be the highest form of judicial impropriety, if not contempt of the legal mandate enjoined upon it. 13. Order XIV of the CPC deals with the procedure of settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. 14. For ready reference, the procedure contained under Order XIV of the CPC is reproduced as under:- “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 arc 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 and 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 is this rule requires the Court to frame and record issued where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence. (8 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] 2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. —(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if the issue relates to— (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. 3. Materials from which issues may be framed. —The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials:— (a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties; (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit; (c) the contents of documents produced by either party. 4. Court may examine witnesses or documents before framing issues.—Where the Court is of opinion that the issues cannot be correctly framed without the examination of some person not before the Court or without the inspection of some document not, produced in the suit, (may adjourn the framing of issues to a day not later than seven days) and may (subject to any law for the time being in force) compel the attendance of any person (9 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] or the production of any document by the person in whose possession or power it is by summons or other process. 5. 5. Power to amend and strike out, issues.—(1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced. 6. Questions of fact or law may by agreement be stated in form of issues.—(1) Where the parties to a suit are agreed as to the question of fact or of law to be decided between them, they may state the same in the form of an issue, and enter into an agreement in writing that, upon the finding of the Court in the affirmative or the negative or such issue,— (a) a sum of money specified in the agreement or to be ascertained by the Court, or in such manner as the Court may direct, shall be paid by one of the parties to the other of them, or that one of them be declared entitled to some right or subject some liability specified in the agreement; (b) some property specified in the agreement and in dispute in the suit shall be delivered by one of the parties to the other of them, or as that other may direct; or (c) one or more of the parties shall do or abstain from doing some particular act specified in the agreement and relating to the matter in dispute. 7. Court, if satisfied that agreement was executed in good faith, may pronounce (10 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] judgment.—Where the Court is satisfied, after making such inquiry as it deems proper,— (a) that the agreement was duly executed by the parties, (b) that they have a substantial interest in the decision of such question as aforesaid, and (c) that the same is fit to be tried and decided, it shall proceed to record and try the issue and state its finding or decision thereon in the same manner as if the issue had been framed by the Court; and shall, upon the finding or decision on such issue, pronounce judgment according to the terms of the agreement; and, upon the judgment so pronounced, a decree shall follow.” 15. Perusal of the provisions provided under Order XIV CPC clearly indicates that whenever pleadings are disputed by the either side, it is the bounden duty of the Court to frame issues for determination of the dispute based on the pleadings of the parties to the suit and thereafter, the burden of proof is allocated to the party disputing the material facts or the provisions of law. As per Rule 7 of the Order XIV, the Court is required to pronounce the judgment on all the framed issues. However, here in the instant case, the aforesaid provisions have been flouted by the Trial Court. It is quite shocking and surprising that in the instant case, although the issues were framed, but they were not decided by appreciating the evidence led on record by the either side and straightaway, the impugned order has been passed summarily, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 16. The impugned judgment has been passed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by them on record. This fact is not in dispute that the Trial Court has framed (11 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] as many as eight issues, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, however, while deciding the suit and delivering the impugned judgment, no categorical issue-wise findings have been recorded, which is mandatory as per the provisions contained under Order XX Rule 5 CPC. 17. For ready reference, the Order XX Rule 5 CPC is reproduced as under:- “5. Court to state its decision on each issue.–In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issue is sufficient for the decision of the suit.” 18. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly indicates that the provisions contained under Rule 5 of Order XX CPC is mandatory and it is the duty of the Court to record its findings on each and every issue separately. However, herein the instant case, the issues have not been decided separately, instead a common consolidated judgment has been passed against the aforesaid mandate of law. This fact has been overlooked by the First Appellate Court, but has been rightly pointed out by the Second Appellate Court, i.e., the Board. 19. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court finds that the impugned judgment passed by the SDO does not stand the judicial scrutiny as it is completely in violation of the provisions of Order XX Rule 5 and Order XIV Rule 2, CPC. The purport of these provisions is that the trial Court after framing issues is supposed to give its finding or decision, with reason upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of (12 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] the suit or the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and postpone the settlement of other issues until after that issue has been determined. 20. In the present case, the trial Court has framed the issues and was supposed to give separate findings on each issue, as admittedly the findings upon any one or more of them are not sufficient for the decision of the suit. By simply enumerating the evidence and law and thereafter giving conclusion whereby the case of one party is accepted and the other party is rejected, is no judgment in the eyes of law. In other words, the judgment which does not contain the reasons or grounds on the basis of which the Judge has come to his conclusion/decision for passing a judgment and decree on the points in issue or controversy, is vitiated. It is all the more necessary, when the judgment is by the Court of fact and is appeal-able, to avoid unnecessary delay and protracted litigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto, AIR 1985 SC 736, has held in paragraph 27 as under: “In a matter of this nature where several contentions factual and legal are urged and when there is a scope of an appeal from the decision of the Court, it is desirable as was observed by the Privy Council long time ago to avoid delay and protraction of litigation that the Court should, when dealing with any matter dispose of all the points and not merely rest its decision on one single point.” (13 of 13) [CW-5775/2012] Therefore, by not deciding issues Nos. 1 to 8 separately by referring to material evidence on each issue for and against the parties and giving reasons for its acceptance or rejection, the impugned judgment passed by the SDO is vitiated. 21. Perusal of the judgment passed by the SDO indicates that in all eight issues were framed, but no finding has been recorded issue-wise only on the ground that no evidence was produced by the other side, however, in any case, under such circumstances, the SDO was supposed to decide the suit by recording issue-wise findings in terms of the mandate contained under Order XX Rule 5 CPC, hence, the Board has not committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the SDO and the matter has been rightly remitted to the SDO for adjudication of the suit afresh in accordance with law by giving findings on issue Nos.1 to 8 separately without asking the parties to lead further evidence and the suit would be decided on the basis of the evidence, documents and material available on record. 22. Needless to observe, the fresh judgment shall be passed by the SDO within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/63