USHA Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the same parties and the same property. The decision in one appeal would necessarily affect the judgment in the other appeal.

(2.) IN RSA 483 of 2007, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge (Forest) Shimla reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court granting the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as described in the plaint.

(3.) WHETHER the learned District Judge below has failed to consider pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence on record and, therefore, findings recorded by him are liable to be set aside? 4. These questions need not detain this Court any further as I find from the judgment of the learned appellate Court that there is hardly any consideration of the grounds of appeal raised nor is there any critical examination of the evidence, oral and documentary, on record in order to arrive at a particular conclusion. The learned appellate Court merely mentions the submissions made by the Counsel and then proceeded to accept the appeal straightway. This is not a satisfactory manner of disposing of an appeal. It is by now well settled that the first appellate Court is duty bound to make a critical analysis of the case before it and cannot mechanically record, affirm or reject the findings of the trial Court. It is duty bound to discuss the merits of the contentions raised by the appellant and to deal with all issues of fact and law. (See United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kanwal Nain Sachdeva and Ors. 1999 (9) SCC 193, State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (Dead) through his L.Rs. 2000 (5) SCC 652 and Madhukar and Ors. v. Sangram and Ors. 2001 (4) SCC 756).