Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
44. It is indubitable that a “judgment”, if pronounced by a court under Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC, must satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(2) of Order XX, CPC, and thereby conform to its definition provided in section 2(9) thereof.
45. Further, even a cursory reading of Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC impresses upon us the fundamental mandate that a “decree” shall follow a “judgment” in a case where the court invokes power upon failure of a defendant to file its written statement. It is, therefore, only a “judgment” conforming to the provisions of the CPC that could lead to a “decree” being drawn up. As is manifest on the face of the record of the present case, apart from the ipse dixit of the Trial Court that the case is fit for being proceeded against under Rule 10 of Order VIII and that the suit qua Samiullah ought to be decreed with the injunctive order, no ingredients that a “judgment” should contain as per the CPC appear in the order dated 5th August, 1991.
46. We deem it fit to advert to the fine words of wisdom imparted to us by Hon’ble P.B. Mukharji, CJ., in ‘The New Jurisprudence: The Grammar of Modern Law’ where the learned author says: “The supreme requirement of a good judgment is reason. Judgment is of value on the strength of its reason. The weight of a judgment, its binding character or its persuasive character depends on the presentation and articulation of reason. Reason, therefore, is the soul and spirit of a good judgment.”
47. It is one of the cardinal principles of the justice delivery system that any verdict of a competent judicial forum in the form of a judgment/ order, that determines the rights and liabilities of the parties to the proceedings, must inform the parties what is the outcome and why one party has succeeded and not the other – the ‘why’ constituting the reasons and ‘what’ the conclusion. Apart from anything else, [2024] 1 S.C.R. Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. insistence of the requirement for the reason(s) to support the conclusion guarantees application of mind by the adjudicator to the materials before it as well as provides an avenue to the unsuccessful party to test the reasons before a higher court.
48. All civil courts in the country have to regulate their judicial work in accordance with the terms of the provisions of the CPC. Any egregious breach or violation of such provisions, including the one noticed here, would be ultra vires.
49. Let us now examine whether there is a ‘decree’ within the scope of section 2(2), CPC. Section 2(2) is reproduced hereunder: (2) “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include – (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. (underlining ours, for emphasis)
50. The decree signed by the Trial Court on 11th November, 1991 is not on record. Nevertheless, at the cost of repetition, we record that examination of the order dated 5th August, 1991 does not reveal any adjudication leading to determination of the rights of the parties in relation to any of the matters in controversy in the suit and, therefore, the decree since drawn up is not a formal expression of an adjudication/determination since there has been no adjudication/ determination so as to conform to the requirements of a decree within the meaning of section 2(2). In this regard, we express our concurrence with both the High Court and the Executing Court that there is no decree at all in the eye of law.
51. We, therefore, hold that a decree that follows a judgment or an order (of the present nature) would be inexecutable in the eyes of law and execution thereof, if sought for, would be open to objection in an application under section 47, CPC. 548 Conclusion
52. For the reasons mentioned above, we conclude that the Trial Court had no authority to decree the suit against Samiullah in exercise of its power under Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC.
53. There is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court under challenge. It is upheld and the appeal, accompanied by any pending applications, stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
54. It is, however, made clear that no part of the observations of this Court, or of the High Court or of those below, be treated as an expression of opinion in any particular matter or on any factual aspect whatsoever. Determination of the title to the suit property, adjudication on the validity of the sale deed in favour of the Purchasers, or decision on any other contentious issue are left open for a forum of competent jurisdiction to embark upon, if approached by any of the parties.
55. We are aware that pursuant to Interim Application No. 4 of 2013 moved by the appellants, this Court had appointed one Mr. Suryanarayana Singh as the Court Receiver in respect of the property (“Court Receiver”, hereafter) on 14th March, 2014. The Court Receiver already appointed shall stand discharged forthwith. Unpaid remuneration, if any, shall be borne by the appellants.
56. However, the Court Receiver shall provide accounts of income and expenditure in respect of the suit property to the appellants as well as the respondents 1 to 3 within two months and any claim of either of the parties would be open to be raised and addressed in accordance with law. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.