ARULMIGHU ARASADI KARPAGA VINAYAGAR TEMPL Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned single Judge has set aside the judgment of the trial Court solely on the ground that the issues had not been properly framed.

(2.) We have gone through those issues. Though better language could have been employed to bring into focus the issues that arose in the case, the remand of the case, nearly fifteen years after the disposal by the trial Court, solely for the purpose of re-writing the issues and thereafter, considering the same evidence, in our view, was not the appropriate course to be followed.

(3.) In the matter of framing issues as also in the matter of writing judgments, a great deal depends upon the literary skills of the Presiding Officer and the fact that many of these Officers do not possess that skill in the requisite degree is a reality which has to be accepted. If, on a fair reading of what has been written, it is possible to ascertain as to what was intended to be conveyed, the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the final decision on the ground that the issues should have been worded differently.