Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 750 (KAR)

Basavannappa Shivappa Haveri v. Virupaxappa

2002-12-02

B.PADMARAJ

body2002
ORDER B. Padmaraj, J.--Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the case papers including the impugned order made by the trial Court. 2. The impugned order made by the trial Court reads as under: Sri SSP files Advancement application to take the case on board with a memo for the reasons stated therein. Hence, submitted for: orders Respondent No. 8 present. Sri SSP Advocate filed memo stating that Respondent No. 8 is taking crop in the property illegally and suitable orders be passed to protect crop until disposal of I.A. 11. Sri BPP, objections to said memo. Heard both sides. However until order on I.A. No. 11, Respondent No. 8 is directed not to remove crop in the disputed properties. Call on 28.11.2002 3. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I find that the impugned order made by the trial Court is on the face of it an improper and patently an illegal order. Hence I find that the matter could be disposed of without the aid of the other side and there is no need even for issue of notice to the other side. Therefore in view of the patently illegal order made by the trial Court, notice to Respondent is dispensed with. I am not able to comprehend as to how such an order which is in the nature of restraining the Petitioner from removing the crop could be ordered on the basis of a mere memo and in the face of the application filed under Order 26, Rule 10 (c) of Code of Civil Procedure being pending for consideration by the Court. The impugned order made by the trial Court does not spell out any reasons for passing such order or issuing such direction. The impugned order seems to have been passed mechanically by the Court in a very casual manner without application of mind. There is a jurisdictional error involved in the impugned order in so much so that it is a non-speaking order passed mechanically without the application of mind. It is well settled that the Court is required to give reasons while passing an order affecting the rights and interests of a particular party. There is a jurisdictional error involved in the impugned order in so much so that it is a non-speaking order passed mechanically without the application of mind. It is well settled that the Court is required to give reasons while passing an order affecting the rights and interests of a particular party. In this case I find that no reason has been recorded by the Court below for issuing such a direction to the Petitioner herein and this in itself is sufficient ground to set aside the impugned order and send the matter back to the Court below for passing appropriate order in accordance with law. If according to the Court below there was some urgency in the matter, it could have as well taken the application filed under Order 26, Rule 10 (c) Code of Civil Procedure for consideration instead of passing the impugned order on the memo. It has to be stated that however brief an order may be, it must spell out the reasons in brief for passing such order, as otherwise it will amount to an arbitrary order. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and minimizes chances of arbitrariness and higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. The Court must indicate brief reasons in support of its view or order. As I have already stated the impugned order is bereft of any reasons let alone the valid reasons. I therefore find that the impugned order made by the Court below cannot be sustained and hence it is liable to be set aside. 4. In the result, therefore, this Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed. The impugned order made by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for passing appropriate and considered order in accordance with law. Till then, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. It is however made clear that it is also open to the Court below to consider the application filed under Order 26, Rule 10 (c) of Code of Civil Procedure instead of passing such interim order on the memo. Keeping open the said option to the trial Court and directing the parties to maintain status quo, the Revision Petition stands allowed with the above observations and directions.