K PADAMAVATHAMMA Vs. R UMA MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Admit. With their consent this second appeal is decided at this stage.

(2.) The question raised in this appeal with regard to which the parties were heard was that, in the facts and circumstances of the case whether it can be said that the Appellate Court was biased as against the trial Court and if so, would it vitiate the judgment passed by the Appellate Court? In a suit for injunction, which was later on amended, a relief for declaration of title and possession was also sought from the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Basically the findings shall have to be arrived at on the issues framed, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The two Courts below appreciated the evidence and came to different conclusions. As is well settled, this Court would not be in a position to reappreciate the evidence as appreciated by the Courts below, but the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that it is unfair to expect a fair judgment from a judicial authority who appears to have had some beliefs, rightly or wrongly, about the capability, capacity and integrity of the trial Judge. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards the observations made by the Appellate Judge in his judgment. Relevant observations are, "Nothing more is required to observe that concerned Presiding Officer of the lower Court is either incompetent to decide title suit of this nature or he is resorting to misread or twist or to ignore the material facts to arrive at the conclusion which he arrived at in the judgment under appeal". These comments, in the facts and circumstances of the case, were unwarranted. The Judges are expected to have some restraint while making comments, particularly when the Appellate Courts are hearing the appeals against the lower Court judgments. Our judicial system is a hierarchal system in which if a mistake is committed at the first stage, it can be corrected at the next higher level, Since it is expected that a mistake may be committed by a particular Court in appreciating the evidence or law, therefore, there are remedies by way of appeals or revisions. But some how the District Judge made sweeping remarks for reasons best known to him against the trial Judge. When a Judge hears a matter, it is presumed in law that he has an open mind in hearing the matter without any kind of prejudice in favour of or against any of the parties or the lawyers appearing therein or the Judges against whose judgment the appeal is being heard. Manifestly, some prejudice was at work when the learned District Judge was hearing the appeal. The Supreme Court has held judicial bias on account of judicial obstinacy a ground for reversing the finding. In State of West Bengal vs. Shivananda Pathak the Supreme Court posed a question, whether judicial obstinacy can be treated as a form of bias. The question was answered positively. In para-26 the Court observed;

(3.) Going by the judgment of he Supreme Court and by the remarks made by the District Judge it becomes manifestly clear that it is not seen whether justice is being done, justice might have or might have not been done but certainly it does not appear that justice has been done. The judgment should not give an impression that the deciding authority whether judicial or quasi judicial had any kind of bias towards the parties, Advocates or towards the person whose decision was under appeal before him.