MANA Vs. ROOPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Addl. Commissioner, Udaipur, dated 28.10.61, by which he has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the decree and judgment of Sub Divisional Officer, Palasiya dated 11.8.58 in a suit for ejectment and compensation. The only point urged in this appeal is that the learned Addl. Commissioner has failed to deal with all the points raised by the appellant before him and that his judgment was not a good judgment in the eye of law. A bare perusal of the first appellate Courts judgment will go to show that the appellant had assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that the latter had disbelieved the evidence produced on his behalf without any reason and that certain persons who were necessary parties had not been impleaded so. The learned Addl. Commissioner discussed only the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the appellant but did not at all refer and discuss the oral evidence produced by him. On the other hand he observed that there was no reason why the oral evidence produced by the respondent should not be believed. As regards the non -joinder of parties no discussion or observation whatsoever was made.

(2.) It need not be emphasized that the first Appellate Court is as much a court of facts as the trial court. It is not there only to ditto what the trial court has done. Rather, its function and duty lies in making its own independent examination and appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties and coming to an independent conclusion of its own thereupon. This necessitates a detailed discussion of all the evidence produced on behalf of the parties with reference to the points arising for determination and decision thereon on such an appreciation along with reasons. In an assenting or confirming judgment such a discussion and appreciation may be brief, But in reversing or varying judgment it will have to be fully detailed. Even in a confirming judgment where a detailed discussion may not be very necessary, it would be still essential that all the evidence on the points raised in appeal at least should be fully discussed and all the points on which the judgment of the trial court be assailed be met.

(3.) As discussed above the learned Addl. Commissioner has failed to comply with this basic provision of law in this case. His judgment cannot, therefore, be upheld, as has been conceded very rightly by the learned counsel for the appellant as well. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Addl. Commissioner and remand the case to him with the direction that he should readmit the appeal at its original number and redecide it in accordance with law keeping in view the observation made above.