CRA.415-09 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 415 OF 2009 Madhusudan V. Mehta (Through Legal Representative) .. Applicant Vs. Natvarlal G. Ved ..Respondent Mr. G. S. Godbole with Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b Ms. Jai Kanade, for the Applicant. Mr. R. A. Thorat with Ms. Neenakshi Surve, for the Respondent CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 29, 2010. P.C. : 1. This revision is taken up for final decision at the admission stage by consent of parties. The learned counsel for the applicant points out that the judgment of the Appellate Court is mostly verbatim reproduction of paragraphs after paragraphs of the judgment of the trial Court with some modifications. He has prepared a comparative chart to show which paragraphs are copied. This according to him, indicates non CRA.415-09 - 2 - application of mind. The most unfortunate part is that even paragraphs where conclusions were drawn have also been picked up by the learned Judges, constituting the Appellate Bench. Paragraph 38 of the trial Court is reproduced as paragraph 34 of the Appellate Court judgment with only change to the effect that - The learned trial Judge had stated that “he was of the opinion”; whereas the Appellate Bench had stated that “they were of the opinion.” 2. As final Court of facts, it was necessary for the members of the Appellate Bench to re-assess the whole evidence and come to appropriate conclusions. Their appreciation for the trial Court’s expression of facts as well as reasons could not have been conveyed in this fashion. Therefore, in spite of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of – Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs. [(2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 173] where the Supreme Court condones absence of reasons or inadequacies of reasons in the judgment if the Appellate Court confirms the findings of the trial Court, it cannot be said that this judgment of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court would pass muster. The appeal is required to be re-heard and the judgment re-written, since the judgment was written in the year 2008 CRA.415-09 - 3 - and the learned Judges may have forgotten most of the arguments. 3. In view of this, the revision application is allowed. The judgment of the Appellate Bench is quashed and set aside. If the learned Judge consisting the Appellate Bench are still in the Small Causes Court, the learned Principal Judge of the Small Causes Court shall constitute the same Bench for re-hearing of the appeal, preferably within one month from the receipt of the writ of this Court and the learned Judges may decide the appeal afresh within a period of 15 days, from conclusion of hearing. 4. The parties are at liberty to approach the Principal Judge of the Court of Small Causes on the basis of the authenticated copy of this order. 5. The interim order, staying execution of the decree would remain in force till the appeal is decided afresh by the Appellate Bench. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]