A judge cannot remain a passive observer during court proceedings and later base a decision on doubts that were never shared with the parties, the Madras High Court has ruled, stressing that judicial reasoning must emerge from issues openly discussed in court.
The ruling came from a Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and R. Poornima while overturning a trial court order that had dismissed a money recovery suit on grounds neither raised by the defendant nor put to the plaintiff during the proceedings.
The High Court observed that trial judges possess sufficient powers under law to seek clarification from litigants and witnesses whenever uncertainties arise. If a court harbours doubts, it must voice them during the hearing rather than reserve them for the final judgment.
“The Judge should not sit like a sphinx,” the Bench remarked, adding that meaningful interaction between the Bench and the Bar is an essential component of natural justice. According to the Court, judges are expected to question witnesses and engage with counsel whenever clarification is required.
The Bench further underscored that litigants should never be caught off guard by findings based on issues that were never debated. While a judgment’s final result may come as a surprise, the reasoning behind it should not. Courts, it said, must ensure that every significant issue forming part of a decision has been aired and examined during the hearing.
The case arose from an appeal filed by P. Palanikumar, who sought recovery of ₹31.54 lakh. He claimed that R. Selvi had borrowed ₹25 lakh in June 2015 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with annual interest of 12 percent. He further asserted that she had handed over the original sale deed of her property as security.
After repayment allegedly failed to materialise, Palanikumar issued a legal notice and eventually moved the civil court.
Notably, Selvi neither filed a written statement nor cross-examined the plaintiff. She also chose not to produce any evidence in her defence.
Despite the absence of any challenge from the defendant, the trial court dismissed the suit, holding that Palanikumar had failed to establish his financial capacity to lend such a large amount, the mode of payment, and the execution of the promissory note.
The High Court found this approach fundamentally flawed.
It pointed out that the plaintiff’s financial capacity had never been questioned by the defendant. Nor had the trial judge raised the issue during the proceedings. In such circumstances, the Court said, an adverse finding could not legally be recorded on that aspect.
Referring to Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Bench noted that judges are empowered to directly question parties and witnesses to clear doubts. However, if such questions are asked, the substance of those interactions must be properly recorded.
“The learned trial Judge not having put even a single court question could not have rendered an adverse finding on a point that was not challenged,” the Court observed.
The Bench also rejected the inference that the transaction was fictitious merely because it was not reflected in the plaintiff’s income-tax records.
Describing the lower court’s reasoning as wholly inadequate, the High Court concluded that its findings could not be sustained in law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court decreed the suit in favour of Palanikumar. It further clarified that once the decree amount is satisfied, the defendant may approach the trial court to recover the original title documents deposited in connection with the transaction.
