Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kushuma Devi, filed an eviction petition against the respondents, which was decreed by the Civil Judge on 19.04.1996. The respondents appealed, and the first Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 04.12.2001, dismissing the eviction petition. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 27.07.2012 by an unreasoned order. The appellant's application for recall was also dismissed on 16.01.2013. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order merely stated that no patent illegality or irregularity was found and that findings of fact were not perverse, without any discussion of issues or submissions. The Supreme Court held that every judicial or quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons, and the impugned order lacked such reasoning. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits within six months, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Judicial Orders - Requirement of Reasons - Every judicial or quasi-judicial order deciding the lis between parties must be supported by reasons - The High Court dismissed the writ petition without any discussion, findings, or reasons - Held that such an order is not legally sustainable and is set aside - Case remanded for fresh disposal (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition is legally sustainable when it is unreasoned and does not discuss issues or submissions.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside; case remanded to High Court for fresh disposal of writ petition on merits within six months.
Law Points
- Judicial orders must be reasoned
- Every judicial or quasi-judicial order deciding lis must be supported by reasons
- Absence of reasons renders order unsustainable
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (4) 116
Civil Appeal Nos.3448-3449 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.7837-7838 of 2014)
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order dismissing writ petition in an eviction matter.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of High Court orders and remand for fresh disposal of writ petition.
Filing Reason
High Court dismissed writ petition without assigning reasons.
Previous Decisions
Civil Judge decreed eviction on 19.04.1996; first Appellate Court allowed appeal on 04.12.2001 dismissing eviction petition; High Court dismissed writ petition on 27.07.2012 and recall application on 16.01.2013.
Issues
Whether the High Court's order dismissing the writ petition is legally sustainable when it is unreasoned.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the High Court's order was unreasoned and did not discuss issues or submissions.
Respondents presumably supported the High Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
Every judicial or quasi-judicial order deciding the lis between parties must be supported by reasons; an unreasoned order is not legally sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
Having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity therein warranting interference.
This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion.
Procedural History
Appellant filed eviction petition (Misc. Case No. 18/1990) which was decreed on 19.04.1996. Respondents appealed (Rent Appeal No. 4/1996) which was allowed on 04.12.2001 dismissing eviction petition. Appellant filed writ petition (CMWP No. 3231 of 2002) which was dismissed on 27.07.2012. Recall application (CMRA No.247546 of 2013) dismissed on 16.01.2013. Appellant then filed special leave petitions leading to these appeals.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
