Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 36 (UTT)

PREMVATI v. RAKESH KUMAR

2020-01-08

LOK PAL SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. (Oral) Present civil revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.') is directed against the impugned order dated 25.09.2019 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 229 of 2017 “Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. Premvati and others and another", whereby the recall application filed by the revisionist/applicant has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed a civil suit against the revisionist/defendant for a decree of specific performance. Learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Dehradun on 17.08.2013 passed an ex-parte judgment and decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. Thereafter, the revisionist filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, which was allowed and the suit was directed to be on merits. Thereafter, on 15.07.2019, the suit was fixed for the evidence of revisionist/defendant. On that day, an adjournment application was moved by the counsel for the revisionist. The same was dismissed by learned trial court and the opportunity to adduce evidence of the revisionist/defendant was closed. Thereafter, on 08.08.2019, an application being paper no. 133C2 seeking recall of the order dated 15.07.2019 has been filed by learned counsel for the revisionist/defendant. In support of the said application, an affidavit of pairokar has also been filed. In the said affidavit, it is stated that on the previous occasion his counsel Mr. Arvind Sharma did not contest the case properly and when the revisionists became suspicious of the act they appointed another counsel, namely, Mr. M.K. Juyal to represent their case. It is also stated that their counsel Mr. Arvind Sharma could not prove the evidence, therefore, they could not adduce the evidence. It is also contended that the adjournment application was filed by them bonafidely and valuable rights of the revisionists/defendants have been involved in the suit, therefore, the order dated 15.07.2019 be recalled and at least one opportunity to adduce evidence be granted to them. In support of their contention, the revisionists/defendants cited case law before the trial court. The respondents/plaintiffs filed their objections against the aforesaid application stating therein that the averments made in the application paper no. 133C2 are misleading, the suit was earlier decreed vide judgment dated 17.08.2019 and execution application was filed by the plaintiffs. In support of their contention, the revisionists/defendants cited case law before the trial court. The respondents/plaintiffs filed their objections against the aforesaid application stating therein that the averments made in the application paper no. 133C2 are misleading, the suit was earlier decreed vide judgment dated 17.08.2019 and execution application was filed by the plaintiffs. However, the ex-parte decree was set aside, therefore, the defendants are adopting the dilatory tactics and deliberately not adduced the evidence despite several opportunities granted to them. Therefore, the application paper no.133C2 is liable to be dismissed. Thereafter, learned trial court vide order dated 25.09.2019 observing that that the case law cited by the revisionists/defendants does not apply in the present matter. Learned trial court further observed that since the revisionist defendant were granted several opportunities but they did not adduce the evidence and rejected the recall application filed by the revisionist and fixed the case for final arguments. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionists/defendants filed the present revision. 4. This Court vide order dated 05.11.2019 issued notice to the respondents and stayed the further proceedings of the aforesaid suit. Despite personal service effected upon the respondents, none appeared on their behalf. However, this Court, in the interest of justice, adjourned the case and again stayed the further proceedings of the aforesaid suit. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the order impugned would reveal that several opportunities were granted to the revisionist to adduce the evidence before the trial court but matter is being adjourned on one pretext or the other. It would further reveal that the trial court observed that the revisionists/defendants are delaying the hearing of the matter by moving application paper no. 133C2. The trial court did not mention any reason as to why the case law cited by the revisionists-defendants in their application has no applicability. Perusal of the impugned order would further reveal that the trial court did not bother to refer any judgment cited by the revisionists. It is not accepted in judicial determination not to consider the judgment or case law cited by the parties. It is the duty of every Judge to consider the judgment cited before it by giving proper reasons on which ground the judgment (Supra) is not applicable. The trial court did not consider any of the grounds raised in paper no. 133C2. It is the duty of every Judge to consider the judgment cited before it by giving proper reasons on which ground the judgment (Supra) is not applicable. The trial court did not consider any of the grounds raised in paper no. 133C2. It is settled position in law that if a ground is taken in any of the application or petition, the Court shall adjudicate/decide the application/petition on the grounds taken in the application/petition. Further it is a duty cast upon judicial or quasi judicial authority, even on administrative authority, to record the reasons for arriving at a particular decision but neither the grounds raised in the application has been considered by the trial court nor any sufficient reasons has been given for none considering the judgment cited by the revisionists in their application paper no. 133C2. It is well settled that while considering the application for an opportunity of hearing, instead of taking pragmatic approach, the court should take liberal approach while deciding the application for giving the opportunity of hearing so the matter be decided on merit between the parties and the technicalities should not be come in the way of dispensation of real justice. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another1 has held as under: “40. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a “substantial cause" within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. 44. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. 44. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice – delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected." 8. In another judgment in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish2 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “18. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. 19. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. 19. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties' submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system. 20. We are sorry to say that the judgment in question does not satisfy the above standards set for proper determination of disputes. Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication of our courts. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes." 9. In view of principle of law laid down in judgments (Supra) this Court has no hesitation to observe that while rejecting the application paper no.133C2 of the revisionist, the trial court was duty bound to record the reasons on which grounds the case law cited by the revisionists in support of their application are not applicable in its decision dated 25.09.2019. Reasons in writing while taking decision is the sine qua non, which is the life of a decision. Unless the reasons are recorded by the judicial, quasi judicial or administrative authority, decision so taken does not satisfy the requirement of law. The object/purpose of recording reasons is to ensure that the parties may be aware of their fate and be satisfied that their case has been considered and decided properly. It is settled proposition in law that a judicial or quasi-judicial or even administrative order must be supported by reasons in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making but learned trial court has not assigned any reason for rejecting the application of the revisionists, which is contrary to the law. 10. It is settled proposition in law that a judicial or quasi-judicial or even administrative order must be supported by reasons in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making but learned trial court has not assigned any reason for rejecting the application of the revisionists, which is contrary to the law. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.09.2019 passed by 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun rejecting the application paper no.133C2 is set aside. The application paper no.133C2 is allowed. The order of closing of opportunity to adduce the evidence of the revisionists is hereby recalled. Revisionists are permitted to adduce their evidence. Learned trial court shall fix a date for recording the evidence of defendants. In case the evidence is not adduced by the revisionists/defendants on the date fixed, the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by learned trial court shall stood revived. 11. With above observations and directions, the civil revision stands disposed of. 12. No order as to costs.