Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition challenging the decree in a revenue suit seeking partition and permanent injunction, without framing issues and without recording evidence from both sides, a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., and quashed both Sub Divisional Officer (SDO)’s and the appellate court’s orders and held that SDO’s action in decreeing a contested suit without framing issues or recording evidence is patently contrary to settled principles of civil jurisprudence.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, a revenue suit filed against the defendant-petitioner by his brother, plaintiff-respondent before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Mahwa, District Dausa, for partition and permanent injunction. The SDO, vide impugned order dated 02-07-2021, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff without framing issues or recording evidence. The order was challenged in the first and second appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, but both appeals were dismissed vide judgments dated 07-12-2021 and 11-11-2024 respectively.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that although the defendant filed a written statement denying the claims of the plaintiff, no issues were framed nor was any evidence recorded by the trial court. It was contended that the procedure under Order XIV of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), which mandates framing of issues and taking evidence, was not followed. It was argued that the order passed by the SDO was therefore illegal, arbitrary, and against the mandate of procedural law.
However, the respondents contended that the disputed property was recorded in the respondent’s name in revenue records, and therefore, no further trial was needed. It was argued that the SDO had appreciated this fact correctly, and both appellate authorities had rightly upheld the decision.
Court’s Observation
The Court categorically held that the procedure adopted by the trial court was patently illegal. The Court remarked that “the instant case is a classic and glaring textbook example of obstination exhibited by the Revenue Courts, who often overlook and bypass the procedure laid down for deciding the suit.”
-
Violation of Procedural Mandate under CPC
The Court traced the procedural law from Order VI to Order XX CPC and emphasised on the mandatory nature of framing issues once pleadings are complete. The Court cited in detail the purpose and process of framing issues under Order XIV CPC and emphasised that once pleadings are complete, it is incumbent upon the court to —
- Examine the material propositions of fact and law on which the parties are at variance;
- Frame specific issues in accordance with Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC;
- Allocate the burden of proof appropriately;
-
Proceed to record the evidence of the parties to enable a just decision.
The Court further stated that facts in issue must be translated into framed issues, and the court has no discretion to bypass this foundational requirement in adversarial proceedings. The Court stated that —
“On the face of it, there is a mandate in the rule. The court is bound to frame issues based on the pleadings… Failure to frame issues on the part of the court, if arise out of the pleadings, would be a highest form of judicial impropriety, if not contempt of a legal mandate enjoined upon it.”
The Court further noted that the trial court failed to frame even the most basic issues, such as —
“1) Whether the plaintiff proves the correctness of the plaint schedule including the boundaries of the suit property?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves his title to the suit property?
3) a) Whether the defendant proves his title to the portion of the suit property for which he is claiming possession as pleaded in para17 of the written statement?
b) if so, whether he was in possession of such a property as on the date of the suit?
4) Whether the suit is not maintainable?
5) a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the suit?
b) if not, to what relief?
6) what order or decree?”
-
Court’s shock at Revenue Courts’ approach
The Court found it “quite shocking and surprising” that both appellate courts failed to appreciate this fundamental procedural lapse. The Court noted the manner in which SDO proceeded to decide the suit on the same day when the written statement was submitted by the defendant, no issues were framed, and no opportunity was granted to lead evidence. The Court noted that despite a contested title, the trial court decreed the suit without conducting even a rudimentary trial.
“It is quite shocking and surprising that in the instant case, neither the issues were framed nor the evidence of either side was recorded and straightway, the impugned order has been passed decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff.”
The Court further stated that what is even more disconcerting for the Court is the failure of the appellate authorities, i.e., the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, to correct this error as they simply upheld the trial court’s judgment without addressing the core procedural violation.
-
Need for Systemic Reform — Training of Revenue Officers
Taking judicial notice of systemic deficiencies, the Court lamented that Revenue Courts are often presided over by officers from the Administrative Services, who neither possess legal training nor familiarity with procedural laws like the CPC or the Evidence Act and this structural deficiency has resulting in procedural violations and led to routine and repeated miscarriages of justice.
The Court observed that Presiding Officers in Revenue Courts and their Appellate counterparts perform quasi-judicial functions that require adherence to principles of natural justice, legal reasoning, and procedural fairness, competencies that must be cultivated through formal training.
“On many occasions, this Court has noticed that the Revenue Courts and their Appellate Courts commit procedural mistakes… The practical process is openly flouted by these Courts on account of lack of knowledge about the procedure laid down under the law.”
In an important policy observation, the Court recommended establishment of an Administrative Judicial Academy to train Administrative Service Officers posted in Revenue Courts and stated that “it is right time and high time to establish Administrative Judicial Academy… Officers must be trained in framing issues, recording evidence, and drafting judgments…”
Call for Establishing an Administrative Judicial Academy
The Court made a strong recommendation to the State of Rajasthan to establish an Administrative Judicial Academy for training officers of the Rajasthan Administrative Services who are posted in quasi-judicial roles. The Court listed five concrete steps for implementation, including the development of curriculum, training in framing issues, recording evidence, and judgment writing. The Court called for both pre-service and in-service training of such officers, paralleling the training provided to judicial officers through the National and State Judicial Academies.
“In an age where justice must not only be done, but seem to be done swiftly and fairly, a well-training administration is essential and the same is need of the hour.”
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the impugned order of the SDO dated 02-07-2021, and the appellate orders dated 07-12-2021 and 11-11-2024. The Court remitted back the matter to the trial court to be decided afresh, after framing proper issues, recording evidence from both sides, and adjudicating the dispute on merits with due process of law. The Court directed the parties to appear before the trial court on 08-07-2025 and directed the trial court to dispose of the matter preferably within 18 months.
[Umakant Sharma v. Om Prakash Sharma, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 840/2025, Decided on 27-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Hari Krishna Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the Respondents
