IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 47 of 2003 Date of Decision : July 15, 2009 M/s Bakshi Sales Appellant. Versus M/s Rohit Chemical Allied Industries Private Limited. Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondent : Mr. R. K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The defendant-appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.8.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 20-S/1 of 98/90, titled as M/s Rohit Chemical and Allied Industries (P) Ltd. versus M/s Bakshi Sales. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,75,860/- against the defendant-appellant. The recovery pertains to certain business transactions entered into between them. The defendant contested the plaintiff’s claim, inter alia on the ground 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit and that the suit was not maintainable. Based on the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit, as alleged? OPD 2. Whether the instant suit is not maintainable for the reasons stated in para No. 15 of the written statement, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the time was essence of the agreement for the supply of machinery by the defendants, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the machinery supplied by the defendant on different intervals and stages was of sub-standard quality not conforming to the agreement as alleged, if so, its effect? OPP 5. Whether the defendants unlawfully charged revised rates on centri-fuges, contrary to the terms of the agreement, as alleged? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff suffered losses on account of the shortage supply of the material contrary to the terms of the agreement, as alleged if so, its effect? OPP 7. Whether the supply of machinery by the defendant to the plaintiff was belated one, as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPP 8. Whether the plaintiffs paid amount of various articles two times on account of submission of the bills twice pertaining to the supply of the same articles as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPP 9. What rate of interest the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the defendants? OPP 3 10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount or any other amount as compensation/ damages, as alleged? OPP 11. Relief.” Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. The Court below, instead of deciding the issues separately clubbed issues No. 3 to 10 together and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. In my view, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant is right in contending that the Court below ought to have considered the entire material on record and after appreciating the same answered the issues separately. Keeping in view the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 CPC, the Court was obliged to state its findings on each issue separately as in the present case, the findings upon one or more of the issues is not sufficient for the decision of the suit. The evidence led and the findings returned on Issues No. 3 and 7 which deal with time being the essence of the agreement for supply of machinery by the defendant, would have no bearing at all on other issues and more particularly Issues No. 4, 6 and 8. As to whether the plaintiff suffered any loss or there was any breach of the quality and specifications and as to whether the bill invoices pertaining to the supply of the same material were raised twice were questions which ought to have been decided separately 4 after appreciating the material on record. One has nothing to do with another. Further perusal of the judgment shows that even though the same is running into 21 pages, however the reasons furnished by the Court below for decreeing the suit are recorded only in paragraph 21 which are being reproduced as under: Para 21. “Thus, having regard to the entire evidence on record, I am of the firm opinion that the time was essence of the agreement for the supply of machinery as the defendant was required to supply the machinery within the time frame of 90 days and it stands proved on record that the machinery supplied by the defendant on different intervals and stages was of sub-standard quality not conforming to the agreement as it has come on record that the defendant used to take the machinery from Sallewal for repair and to re-deliver the same after setting it right and it is further proved on record that the defendant unlawfully charged revised rates on Centri-fuges, contrary to the terms of the agreement and plaintiff suffered losses on account of the short supply of the material contrary to the terms of the agreement and the supply of the machinery by the defendant to the plaintiff was belated one and the plaintiff paid amount of various articles twice on account of submission of the bills twice pertaining to the supply of the same articles and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the rate of interest from the defendant as per the agreement and having regard to entire facts and circumstances 5 of the case, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs. 4,75,860/- as compensation/ damages. Accordingly, all these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.” The first ten pages of the judgment have been exhausted by reproducing the pleadings of the parties and the next ten pages have been utilised to simply reproduce the evidence. As to why and on what basis the evidence led by the plaintiff has been accepted to be creditworthy no reason has been assigned. Hence the judgment in effect is without any reasons. While taking the aforesaid view I am supported by a decision of this Court in Om Prakash and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, AIR 2001 Himachal Pradesh 18. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.8.2002 is set aside. The suit is restored to its original number and position. The matter is remanded back to the Court below. Considering that the matter pertains to the year 1998 the Court is directed to decide the suit in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Parties shall appear before the concerned Court on 10th August, 2009. The record be sent back immediately. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 15, 2009 (PK)