HAR BHAJ Vs. BARFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal (R. S.A. 283 of 1967) was originally registered in the Punjab High Court as R. S. A. No. 656 of 1962. On its transfer to this Court, the present number has been assigned to It.

(2.) . After reading the judgments of the two Courts below, I have no hesitation in setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and sending it back to the same Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The trial Court had on an appraisal of the evidence on the. record decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs and granted a decree in their favour On appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers reversed the conclusions of fact without properly discussing the evidence on the record. I may at this stage reproduce a part of the Impugned judgment:

(3.) . As a matter of fact in regard to the first point dealt with by the lower Appellate Court as well, the judgment cannot be described to be entirely satisfactory, though to an extent perhaps. it is slightly more detailed. Even there. I do feel that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge could have more clearly discussed the evidence, both oral and documentary, on the record with a view to pointing out as to how and where he differed from the appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, as appraised by the first Court. I must not be understood to lay down as a general rule that in all cases the Courts of first appeal must mention every piece of evidence and reproduce the testimony of every witness with elaborate comment All that I intend to lay down is that the judgments of such Courts must clearly suggest that they have applied their judicial mind to the appreciation of the evidence and manifestly convey the process of judicial thinking by which they differ from the conclusions of the Courts below.