Admissions Of Liability Made Outside Of Court Under Pressure Cannot Be Sole Basis To Determine Fact Of Issue: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani has emphasised,

“A civil trial is meant to be conducted strictly as per the provisions of the CPC and more particularly as regards the framing and settlement of the issues, in the backdrop of the evidence adduced by the parties at the proceedings. In the civil cases the burden of proof is on the party which asserts the fact and that should be proved by sufficient, cogent, unambiguous and unequivocal evidence”

Background:

The case involved a dispute between respondent Shokat Ali, a forest contractor, and appellants Din Mohd and Balkrishan, his alleged labor suppliers. Shokat Ali claimed Din Mohd owed him Rs. 2,93,000 for work done in Uttarakhand in 2005. Din Mohd, in turn, filed separate suits for "rendition of accounts," a legal procedure to determine financial liabilities between parties.

The trial court, in a common judgment for all three suits, ruled in favor of Shokat Ali, directing Din Mohd and another defendant to pay him Rs. 1,58,000, and Balkrishan to pay Rs. 1,35,000. Din Mohd and Balkrishan challenged this verdict in separate appeals.

The appellants, Din Mohd and Balkrishan, challenged the trial court's judgment on grounds of illegality and non-appreciation of evidence. They argued that Shokat Ali misused his position to forcibly obtain admissions of liability from them. They also contended that the trial was irregular and the judgment was based on inadequate evidence.

In contrast, Shokat Ali's counsel maintained that the trial court followed proper procedures and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the recovery claim. He argued that the dismissal of the suits for the rendition of accounts was justified under relevant legal provisions.

Observations Of The Court:

Upon meticulously reviewed the trial court's proceedings and the arguments presented by both sides the High Court found fault with the trial court's procedures.

Justice Wani noted that while issues were framed for Shokat Ali's suit, the court ultimately decided the case based on "points of determination" formulated during the trial, without adequately evaluating presented evidence.

The Court noted that Shokat Ali failed to provide sufficient proof of the claimed settlement and the extent of Din Mohd's liability. Additionally, the Rs. 1,35,000 liability placed on Balkrishan, without independent and admissible evidence, was deemed unjustified.

Justice Wani reiterated that civil trials must adhere to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly regarding framing and adjudication of issues based on presented evidence. He emphasized that rights are determined based on "a case pleaded and proved," and judgments must be grounded in findings from the issues framed during the trial.

“A judgment in a civil suit shall necessarily be based on the findings of the adjudication of the issues already framed during trial of the case. Any other pattern of rendering judgment by formulating some points of determination even if inclusive of some of the already framed issues is unknown to law”, the bench remarked.

Observing that in the given circumstances the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of Order XXVI of CPC for issuance of a commission for local investigation for rendition of accounts Justice Wani opined that this could have facilitated the trial court to decide the case more effectively.

Consequently, the High Court partially allowed the appeals. The judgment regarding Shokat Ali's suit for recovery was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the trial court for a fresh hearing.

The trial court was further directed to provide both parties with an opportunity to present additional evidence, including potentially appointing a commission for local investigation to facilitate account reconciliation.

Case Title: Din Mohd Vs Shokat Ali

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 189

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment