GYANENDRA KUMAR Vs. PAVAN KUMAR SEKSARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage. In these appeals I tried to persuade the parties through their learned counsel to settle the dispute amicably and for that purpose a particular suggestion had also been given by me under Section 89 C.P.C. however, learned counsel for the respondent stated that his client had expressed his regrets that he was not in a position to agree to the suggestion of compromise given by the Court. Accordingly, arguments of learned counsel for both the parties were heard. Appellant is tenant and respondent is landlord. Landlord-respondent initiated two suits against the tenant. One was Original Suit No. 288 of 1986 which was for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from making any construction in the tenanted property in dispute and for mandatory injunction for demolition of the construction made by the tenant. The second suit being Original Suit No. 364 of 1987 was for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted accommodation. Both the suits were consolidated and decreed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras through judgment and decree dated 26.8.2008. Against the said decree tenant-appellant filed two appeals being Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2008. Both the appeals were dismissed by District Judge, Hathras through judgment and decree dated 24.2.2010 hence these Second Appeals.

(2.) Judgment of the trial Court is in 22 pages however, judgment of the lower appellate Court is in 78 pages. This much time and energy would have been sufficient to decide five or six more cases. I am sitting in Second Appeal jurisdiction for about eight months and I have found that in most of the cases learned Judges of the Courts below are writing un-necessarily lengthy judgments containing too much repetition. This is also one of the causes for delay in disposal The Judges of the Courts below are required to be taught the necessity and beauty of brevity in writing the judgments at the entry point as well as afterwards through refresher courses.

(3.) The main dispute between the parties is regarding the nature of the property which was let out; whether it was open land (pre-dominantly open land) or constructed building (pre-dominantly constructed building).