TAJ DIN vs MANAK And Another
This matter arises from a second appeal filed in the High Court against the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, which had decreed the respondents' suit for a declaration regarding a thoroughfare after the trial Court had initially dismissed it. The petitioner contested the second appeal on the grounds that the First Appellate Court had misread the evidence of a witness and had failed to discuss findings on all issues framed in the suit. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the First Appellate Court's disposal of the appeal by confining its discussion to the contested issue. The Supreme Court held that since the contest between the parties before the First Appellate Court remained confined to a single issue, the failure to discuss findings on the other unexceptionable issues did not render the disposal improper. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court.
- Whether an appellate court is bound to discuss all issues when the contest before it is confined to a single issue?
- Does the failure to discuss unexceptionable findings on collateral issues vitiate an appellate judgment?
ORDER
1. S. A. NUSRAT, J.--The respondents' suit for a declaration in respect of a thoroughfare was dismissed by the trial Court but was later decreed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. This led to the filing of a second appeal by the petitioner in the High Court. The appeal was contested only on two grounds, namely, that the evidence of Ziledar had been misread by the First Appellate Court and although as many as five issues were framed in the suit, yet the learned Additional District Judge felt content with the disposal of only one of the said issues. Accordingly it was contended that the appeal was not disposed properly. The learned High Court found that the contest between the parties remained confined to issue No.4 before the First Appellate Court and in the circumstances the findings of the trial Court on the other issues were not discussed. Such findings are indeed unexceptionable. The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed.