Gujarat High Court
Brinjraj Siremal Burad vs N M Trading Co on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3208/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3208 of 2013
==========================================================
BRINJRAJ SIREMAL BURAD
Versus
N M TRADING CO
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NS SHEVADE(845) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AI SURTI(875) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. MIHIR A SURTI(6887) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.N.S.Shevade for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Mihir A. Surti for the respondent.
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"(a) Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the order passed by the Small Cause Court, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad on Ex. 98 and 100 dated 23.8.2012 in S.S. No. 4200/2003 and reject the same
(b) Costs of this Petition be awarded from the Respondents.
(c) Any other order may be passed that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.
(d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Petition Your Lordships may be pleased to stay order on Ex. 98 dated 23.8.2012 in S.S. No. 4200/2003"
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:09:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3208/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Shevade would submit that impugned order passed by the Trial Court is a non- speaking order inasmuch as no reasons are assigned by the Trial Court while allowing the impugned applications filed below Exh.98 and 100 by the respondent in Summary Suit No.4200 of 2003 pending before Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Shevade would submit that as per the previous orders passed by the Trial Court, relief, which is prayed for in the present application, is already rejected and thereby, the Trial Court could not have allowed the impugned application.
3.2. So, making the above submission, learned advocate Mr.Shevade would request this Court to allow the present writ application.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Surti appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent - plaintiff has made out his case for relief as prayed in the impugned application and as such, there is no error committed by the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:09:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3208/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined Trial Court while allowing the impugned application. 4.1. Nonetheless, learned advocate Mr.Surti would not be in a position to assist this Court that any reasons are assigned by the Trial Court while allowing the impugned application. 4.2. In that view of the matter, learned advocate Mr.Surti requests this Court to remand the matter back to the Trial Court.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, prima facie, it appears that Trial Court has allowed the impugned application without assigning any reasons and as such, the order impugned is non-speaking order.
6. Considering the nature of controversy germane in the impugned application, a detailed reason requires to have assigned by the Trial Court either rejecting or allowing such application, which is missing.
7. Time and again, Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has observed and held that whenever any adjudication of any application by any Court, reasons are required to be assigned Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:09:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3208/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined either allowing or rejecting such application. At this stage, I remind myself that passing any order that too by judicial person without assigning reasons are antithesis to justice delivery system. It is apposite to refer and reply upon decision of the Honourable Apex Court of India in a case of UPSRTC vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta reported in 2009 (12) SCC 609, wherein observed as under :-
"[8] Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence ofreasons has rendered the High Courts judgment not sustainable. [9] Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All E.R. 1148 observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 LCR 120 it was observed:
"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:09:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3208/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
[10] This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar has while reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases for the past two decades emphasised the necessity, duty and obligation of the High Court to record reasons in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a judgment/order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute any license to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by the well-known saying: "varying according to the Chancellors foot". Arbitrariness has been always held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so when such orders are amenable to challenge further before higher forums. Such ritualistic observations and summary disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be a proper and judicial manner of disposing of judiciously the claim before the courts. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind."
(emphasis supplied)
8. So, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and impugned order suffers from irregularity inasmuch as no reasons are assigned by the Trial Court while allowing the impugned application, this Court has no option left but to quash the impugned order, so, I pass following order:-
8.1. The impugned order dated 23.08.2012 passed by Small Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:09:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3208/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined Causes Court, Court No.4, Ahmedabad below Exh.98 and 100 in Summary Suit No.4200 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, impugned application filed below Exh.98 and 100 are restored back on its original file. 8.2. The Trial Court is hereby directed that the impugned application filed below Exh.98 and 100 in the aforesaid suit within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
8.3. The Trial Court shall have to decide both these applications independently without being influenced by any of the observations made either by this Court or Trial Court itsellf and to decide it in accordance with law and shall have to pass reasoned order.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolutely accordingly. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MOHD MONIS Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 23:09:03 IST 2025