NARESH KUMAR vs SHRI PANCH OSWAL JAIN PEDHI SHIVGANJ

[2026:RJ-JD:23219]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1189/2025
Naresh Kumar S/o Ogarmal, Aged About 39 Years, Shivganj
Tehsil Shivganj District Sirohi
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shri Panch Oswal Jain Pedhi Shivganj, District Sirohi,
Through Authorized Representative Shri Sukanraj Jain S/o
Devichand, R/o Shivganj, District Sirohi.
2. Ogarmal S/o Ramaji, Aged About 84 Years, Shivganj
Tehsil Shivgani District Sirohi (Now Died)
3. Manchhi Bai Spouse/o Ogarmal, Aged About 74 Years, D/
o Gomaram, R/o Shivganj Tehsil Shivganj District Sirohi
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Kumar Gehlot
Mr. Krishna Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
13/05/2026
1. The instant Civil First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC
has been instituted by the appellant-defendant assailing the
judgment and decree dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned
District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No.13/2020, whereby
the suit instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs came to be
decreed and the reliefs pertaining to declaration of ownership,
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(2 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:23219] [CFA-1189/2025]
recovery of possession of the disputed property and damages
were granted in their favour.
2. The respondents-plaintiffs, a duly registered society
possessing juristic status and competency to sue, instituted the
suit with the averment that a resolution had been duly passed by
the society authorising initiation of the present proceedings. It
was pleaded that the suit property had originally been purchased
through the erstwhile officers of the Princely State of Sirohi and, in
pursuance thereof, Patta No.105 dated 10.04.1900 came to be
issued in respect of the said property.
2.1 It was further averred that the property belongs to the
respondents-plaintiffs-society, upon which a well had been
constructed several years ago along with two rooms and an
orchard. On the strength of the aforesaid assertions, the suit
seeking declaration of ownership, recovery of possession and
mesne profits came to be instituted for the cause of action as
pleaded that the appellant-defendant had unlawfully interfered
with and occupied the suit property despite having no semblance
of right, title or interest therein.
2.2 Upon notice, the appellant-defendant entered appearance
and submitted their written statement denying and disputing the
material averments contained in the plaint. Objections with regard
to maintainability of the suit and entitlement of the plaintiff to the
reliefs claimed were also raised.
2.3 On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned
Trial Court framed six issues for adjudication, while Issue No.7
pertained to relief. Thereafter, upon appreciation of the oral as
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(3 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:23219] [CFA-1189/2025]
well as documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties,
the learned Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit in favour of
the respondents-plaintiffs vide the impugned judgment and
decree.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the order passed by the learned court below.
4. This Court notices that an application under Order VII Rule
11 read with Section 151 CPC was preferred by the appellant-
defendant inter alia on the ground that the suit was barred by law
and, therefore, liable to be rejected. The said application came to
be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated
31.05.2025. However, while rejecting the said application, the
learned trial Court, on its own motion, framed an additional issue
and the onus thereof was cast upon the appellant-defendant. For
the ready reference, the issue framed by the Court vide order
dated 31.05.2025 is reproduced herein below:-
आयाप्रतिवादीगणद्वाराप्रस्तुतवादववादीगणद्वाराप्रस्तुतविचाराधीनवादकीविषयवस्तु
एकसमानहोनेकेकारणपश्चातवर्तीवादविधि मेंवर्जितहैं। .... जि म्मेप्रतिवादीगण "
4.1 During the course of hearing, a pointed query was put
collectively to the learned counsel appearing for the parties as to
whether the aforesaid additional issue was ever adjudicated upon
by the learned trial Court. Fairly enough, it could not be disputed,
even by the respondents-plaintiffs, that though the issue was
framed, the same was neither discussed nor adjudicated in the
impugned judgment and decree. It appears that the said issue
inadvertently escaped the attention of the learned trial Court
altogether.
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(4 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:23219] [CFA-1189/2025]
Adjudication vis-à-vis Consequential Formality
5. At this juncture, it would be apposite to observe that under
the mandate of Order XX Rule 5 CPC, the Court is obligated to
state its finding or decision, with reasons therefor, upon each and
every issue framed in the suit.
5.1 At this juncture, it would be apposite to observe that there
exists a marked distinction between a “judgment” and a “decree”
within the scheme of the CPC. A judgment embodies the judicial
consideration, adjudication and determination of the issues arising
between the parties together with the reasons which persuaded
the Court to arrive at its conclusions based upon the evidence,
oral or documentary, produced by the parties and the applicable
legal position. It is the soul of the adjudicatory process reflecting
conscious application of judicial mind upon the controversies
brought before the Court. A judgment does not come into
existence merely by recording a final conclusion or by
mechanically disposing of a suit. It is formed through
comprehensive adjudication of all the issues framed by the Court
upon due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the
assertions made in the plaint, the defence set up in the written
statement, rebuttals and sur-rebuttals, wherever permissible in
law, together with the oral and documentary evidence brought on
record in support thereof and in light of the statutory provision
prevailing in the matter. The entire procedural architecture
contemplated under Orders VI, VII and VIII CPC ultimately
culminates into framing of issues and separate adjudication of
each issue, and it is only upon conscious determination of all such
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(5 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:23219] [CFA-1189/2025]
issues that a judicial determination matures into a “judgment” in
the eye of law.
5.2 There is, however, a limited departure engrafted in the
scheme of the provision by way of a rider that where
determination of any one or more of the issues is by itself
sufficient for disposal of the suit and for bringing the entire
controversy to a quietus, the Court is not mandatorily required to
record independent findings upon every remaining issue. The
legislative intent behind such departure is founded upon the
principle that once an issue touching the very root of the matter
conclusively determines the maintainability or survivability of the
suit itself, adjudication upon the remaining ancillary issues would
be rendered wholly academic and unnecessary. Illustratively,
where an issue pertains to the suit being barred by limitation, res
judicata or any statutory interdiction; or where the controversy
stands concluded on the issue of maintainability of the suit,
absence of cause of action, lack of pecuniary or territorial
jurisdiction; or where the Court arrives at a conclusion that the
suit is ex facie frivolous, vexatious or manifestly untenable in law,
adjudication upon such foundational issue alone may legitimately
suffice for final disposal of the lis. In such circumstances, once the
Court records its determination upon that issue which completely
eclipses the surviving controversy between the parties, no further
adjudication on the remaining issues would be legally warranted.
5.3 Nevertheless, even in such a situation, the judgment cannot
remain conspicuously silent with respect to the issues left
undecided. Judicial discipline and the mandate underlying a
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(6 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:23219] [CFA-1189/2025]
reasoned adjudication require the Court to expressly observe that
since adjudication upon the particular issue or issues has
conclusively and effectively determined the suit in its entirety,
findings upon the remaining issues are not being returned for
want of necessity. Likewise, where out of several framed issues,
adjudication upon a few issues alone is sufficient to finally dispose
of the suit, the Court is expected to specifically record that the
determination of those issues fully concludes the controversy and,
therefore, examination of the remaining issues is rendered
unnecessary.
5.4 What is impermissible in law is a situation where the framed
issues are altogether ignored without even a semblance of
consideration or judicial indication regarding their non-
adjudication. A judgment which neither addresses the issues nor
discloses reasons as to why certain issues were left undecided
ceases to answer the legal conception of a complete judgment.
Such an adjudication would suffer from the vice of incompleteness
and would fall short of the essential attributes of a judgment
contemplated under the scheme of the Code, for a judgment is not
merely a conclusion but a conscious judicial determination
reflecting application of mind to the controversies arising between
the parties.The issues framed by the Court are not ornamental
recitals nor procedural formalities liable to be ignored at
convenience. Each issue represents a material point of controversy
requiring adjudication between the parties and, therefore, every
such issue necessarily demands a finding supported by reasons.
Adjudication of all the framed issues is thus the sine qua non for
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(7 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:23219] [CFA-1189/2025]
constituting a complete and legally sustainable judgment. Where
even one material issue remains untouched or unanswered, the
adjudicatory exercise remains incomplete and the decision
rendered loses the character of a complete judgment
contemplated under law.
5.5 A decree, on the other hand, is merely the formal expression
of the conclusive adjudication embodied in the judgment. In
essence, the decree draws its life, sanctity and existence from the
judgment itself. While the judgment contains the reasoning and
findings on the issues, the decree simply crystallizes the ultimate
result flowing therefrom in executable form. Thus, unless the
issues framed in the suit stand duly adjudicated upon and
answered by the Court, the decision cannot be said to have
matured into a complete “judgment” in the eye of law. Mere
preparation of a decree absent adjudication of a material issue
cannot cure the foundational defect because the formal expression
of adjudication cannot survive independent of the adjudication
itself. Where an issue remains unanswered, the judgment remains
inherently incomplete and consequently the decree founded
thereupon also becomes legally vulnerable.
5.6 A judgment, in the eye of law, attains the character of a
“judgment” only when the issues arising between the parties
stand adjudicated upon whereas a decree is merely the formal
expression of such adjudication. In absence of adjudication upon a
material issue, the judgment suffers from a manifest infirmity
striking at the very root of the adjudicatory process.
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(8 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:23219] [CFA-1189/2025]
6. On the basis of the pleadings specifically raised by the
appellant-defendant, the learned Trial Court framed a distinct
issue with regard to the maintainability of the subsequent suit in
light of the pendency of an earlier instituted suit between the
same parties concerning the very same subject matter. The
additional issue admittedly remained unaddressed and
unanswered. The said issue was not merely ancillary or incidental
in nature, but constituted a foundational and vital issue striking at
the very root of the maintainability and continuance of the suit
itself. An issue touching the bar created by law against
continuation of a subsequent proceeding involving identical
subject matter and parties is undoubtedly an issue going to the
jurisdictional competence of the Court to entertain and proceed
with the suit. Such an issue, therefore, required conscious judicial
determination supported by cogent reasons and clear findings. In
absence of a complete and meaningful adjudication upon such a
material issue, the judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court
cannot be said to satisfy the essential attributes of a lawful
judgment contemplated under the scheme of the Code. In the
present case, the aforesaid issue has remained substantially
untouched and conspicuously unadjudicated. The learned Trial
Court neither returned a clear finding thereupon nor disclosed any
reason as to why adjudication of the said issue was considered
unnecessary. Such omission goes to the very foundation of the
adjudicatory process and renders the judgment legally vulnerable.
Once a judgment itself fails to answer the requirement of a lawful
and complete adjudication in the eye of law, any decree flowing
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(9 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:23219] [CFA-1189/2025]
therefrom, including the impugned money decree, cannot
independently survive or claim legal sustainability. A decree being
merely a formal expression of adjudication cannot stand on a
foundation which itself suffers from the vice of incompleteness and
non-consideration of a material issue going to the root of the
matter. The impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained
in their present form and deserve to be set aside to the extent
indicated hereinbelow.
7. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed in the following
terms:-
(i) The impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for fresh
adjudication. However, the findings already recorded on the issues
earlier adjudicated upon shall remain on record and shall not be
independently reopened for the purpose of leading fresh evidence.
(ii) Insofar as the additional issue framed vide order dated
31.05.2025 is concerned, both the parties shall be afforded
adequate opportunity to lead oral as well as documentary
evidence confined thereto. The legal issue as regards the bar
operating against a subsequent suit instituted between the same
parties in respect of the very same subject matter and suit
property deserves to be adjudicated in the backdrop of the settled
canon of law governing such prohibition. The said aspect strikes at
the very root of the maintainability of the proceedings and,
therefore, warrants a conscious and comprehensive judicial
determination in the light of the principles authoritatively settled
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(10 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:23219] [CFA-1189/2025]
by law. The learned trial Court shall thereafter hear the arguments
of the parties afresh and decide the case.
(iii) The learned trial Court shall not confine itself merely to
rendering an isolated finding on the additional issue alone, but
then shall undertake a fresh and cumulative adjudication by
harmoniously examining the findings on all the issues together
with the evidence already available on record as also the
evidence, if any, adduced pursuant to the present remand, and
thereafter determine afresh as to whether the suit deserves to be
decreed or dismissed.
7.1 It is further clarified that the observations and findings
arrived at in the earlier judgment shall not influence the learned
trial Court in any manner while undertaking the exercise of fresh
adjudication. The matter shall be considered independently,
objectively, strictly in accordance with law and must be based
upon the fresh outcome of the adjudication of issues and its
cumulative impact.
8. Since the present remand has occasioned solely on account
of an omission attributable to the learned trial Court, therefore the
appellant-defendant cannot be made to suffer the loss of court fee
for an error of the Court, thus Court fee paid by the appellant-
defendant for filing the present appeal shall be refunded to him in
accordance with law.
9. The question relating to award or denial of mesne profits
shall also remain open and shall be dependent upon the final
judgment to be rendered by the learned trial Court as directed
herein above.
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)

(11 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:23219] [CFA-1189/2025]
10. The impugned judgment and decree passed earlier in relation
thereto, inconsistent with the present directions, shall be treated
as non est in the eye of law.
11. The learned trial Court is expected to conclude the
proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of 12 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
12. In view of the above, the instant civil first appeal is disposed
of. Decree be prepared accordingly.
13. Stay applications, if any, stands disposed of.
14. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
195-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:04:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:25:02 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)