Finding Of Fact Not To Be Conjectured By Civil Court, Evidence Act Meant For Both Civil & Criminal Trial Alike: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that finding of fact is something which is not to be conjectured by civil court and that the Evidence act is meant for both civil and criminal trials alike.

The Court was considering a Civil 2nd Appeal under Section 100 of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. 1977 against the judgment and decree passed by the court of Principal District Judge in a civil 1st appeal preferred by the seven Respondents herein, who figured as Defendants in the Civil Suit, before the court of Munsiff.

The single bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed, "Finding of fact is something which is not to be conjectured by civil court or for that matter civil 1st appellate court. Evidence Act is meant for the adjudication of civil suits and also for criminal trials alike."

The Appellant was represented by Senior Advocate S. Kour while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Raghav Sawhney.

Facts of the Case

The Appellants commenced the Civil Suit thereby seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the Defendants from causing any interference in the possession of the Appellants/Plaintiffs with respect to suit land.

The Respondents, as Defendants, appeared in the civil suit along with the written statement thereby denying the claim of possession of the Appellants/Plaintiffs qua the suit land which resulted in framing of issues for adjudication of the Civil Suit. The witnesses produced by the respondents/defendants from their own end were non-officials.

No document worth name came to be exhibited as evidence on the suit file for the trial court to refer itself to a document properly introduced and exhibited as an evidence for the purpose of drawing an inference with respect to the revenue record basis for claim and denial of possession of the suit property between the Appellants/Plaintiffs on one hand and the Respondents/Defendants on the other hand.

Still the Trial Court of Munsiff came forward decreeing the Suit of the Appellants/Plaintiffs against the Respondents/Defendants. Against this judgment and decree the Respondents/Defendants preferred a Civil 1st Appeal which came to be allowed by reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissing the Suit of the Appellants/Plaintiffs.

The Appellate Court came up with a singular purported finding that it stands proved that the Appellants/Plaintiffs were not in possession of the Suit Property and, therefore, it could not have been said that the Respondents/Defendants were causing interference in the Suit Property. The present Civil 2nd Appeal thus came to get generated with the Appellants being aggrieved Plaintiffs finding their Civil Suit dismissed by the Appellate Court as against the Decree granted by the Trial Court.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset pointed out that without formulation of substantial questions of law, the Appeal came to be admitted which is a wrong admission to say the least as it is only by formulating the substantial questions of law that a Civil 2nd Appeal is eligible to be admitted for final hearing and disposal on merits.

It accordingly proceeded to frame substantial question of law as to whether without any evidence on record of the civil suit, could the trial court as well as the 1st appellate court come up with any finding of fact in relation to the claim of possession qua the suit property inter se the plaintiffs and the defendants?

The Court observed that both the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court acted as if novice in understanding of law.

"From both the ends i.e., of the plaintiffs’ end as well as of the defendants’ end, no revenue side witnesses came to be examined to prove the revenue record position and still the trial court as well as the 1st appellate court came up with opposite findings of fact, one in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit and one in favour of the defendants in the civil 1st appeal," the Court observed.

It stressed that finding of fact is something which is not to be conjectured by civil court as evidence act applies to both civil and criminal trial alike.

"In the present case, it seems that the trial court as well as the civil 1st appellate court acted as if sitting as panchayats and disposing of the matters at their respective ends as per their respective discretion which is antithesis to the law of adjudication of a civil suit which is supposed to take place in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act," the Court observed.

The matter was accordingly remanded back to Trial Court.

Cause Title: Mohammad Tufail vs. Muzaffar Hussain

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate S. Kour, Advocate Manpreet Kour

Respondent- Advocate Raghav Sawhney, Advocate Sachin Gupta

Click here to read/ download Order