DHANI RAM Vs. BALAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the decree of the lower appellate court affirming the decree of the trial Court in a suit for possession.

(2.) The contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there is no concrete material to show that the appeal filed by the Petitioner was properly considered by the lower appellate court and that he applied his mind to the questions which arose in the appeal. There is considerable justification for that submission. A perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court indicates that it is almost entirely given to a close reproduction of substantial portions of the trial court judgment. There is one short paragraph only in the appellate court judgment expressing the views of the lower appellate court. And in that paragraph all that has been said is that after considering the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court and the reasoning applied by that court it appears that the evidence has been correctly appreciated and the reasoning is plausible. On that the lower appellate court did not find it necessary to interfere with the findings of the trial court. It is apparent that when an appeal is considered by a Court, specially when the appeal lies on facts and law, it is the duty of the appellate court to go through the evidence on the record for itself and in the light of its own appreciation of that evidence to examine whether the findings of the trial court can be sustained. It is not sufficient for the appellate court to confine itself to the judgment of the trial court and on a perusal thereof to hold whether the appeal should be allowed or dismissed. Further, there must be positive evidence on the face of the appellate judgment to indicate that the appellate court has applied its mind to the points of controversy arising in the case. It is not sufficient that the judgment should set out the appreciation of evidence contained in the trial court judgment and the findings set out therein. It seems to me to be necessary in the interest of justice to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and to remand this case to that court for fresh disposal.

(3.) The revision petition is allowed, the judgment and decree dated March 15, 1974, of the lower appellate court are set aside and the case is remanded to that court for fresh disposal. There is no order as to costs.