MISRIBAI RAMKUMAR PANDIT Vs. CHANDRAHAS NARAYAN SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Neither law or equity can justify interference with the impugned order passed by the lower Court.

(2.) The facts are very simple. The present petitioners are original defendants Nos. 1 & 2. They are the owners and builders of some property. The original plaintiff is present respondent No. 1. He claims to have entered into agreement for purchase of one of the flats in the building which was being constructed by original defendants Nos. 1 & 2. But his case is that he did not enter into agreement for such purchase directly with defendants Nos. 1 & 2, but with defendant No. 3, who, the plaintiff claims, was acting as the agent of the builders, defendants Nos. 1 & 2. Present respondent No. 3, who was original defendant No. 4, was the person who had purchased the self same suit flat from defendants Nos. 1 & 2. Evidently, his interest is the same as that of defendants Nos. 1 & 2. The plaintiffs contention was that he had entered into an agreement with defendant No. 3 as agent of defendants Nos. 1 & 2 for the purchase of the suit flat, the certain amount was agreed to be paid as purchase price part of which was to be paid not openly but secretary (the transaction of No. 1 & 2 totally denied any relation with defendant No. 3 as their agent. Defendant No. 3 on the other hand supported the plaintiff in his contention that defendant No. 3 was acting as the agent of defendant Nos. 1 & 2. The plaintiffs agreement with him acting as agent of defendants Nos. 1 & 2 was also admitted. But he contended that the monies that he received from the plaintiff towards the purchase price was handed over by him to defendant Nos. 1 & 2.

(3.) We are not really concerned with the merits of the case as such. The only question that arise is as to whether the learned Judge has delivered any "Judgment" in this case. The evidence was led and all arguments were over on 30-04-1988. The learned Judge even proceeded to deliver the judgment. But while delivering the so-called "judgment", what he did was that the pleadings were summarised, issues were framed, findings on the issues were recorded, pithily , as "No", "Yes", "Yes", etc. The last issue was that what order & Decree ? So far as the reasons were concerned, the word "Reasons" is written by him as the title of the paragraphs. But the entire portion is left by him blank. No reason or ground for coming to the finding is recorded at all. All that he did was that a final order was passed by him and I am told, was even signed by him. By the final order, the plaintiffs suit for specific performance was dismissed against the defendants Nos. 1 & 2. But defendant No. 3 was ordered to pay the amount received by him from the plaintiff. Thus, there was a money decree passed against defendant No. 3, but the suit against defendants Nos. 1 & 2 has been dismissed.