Delhi High Court
Delhi Properties & Ors. vs British Motor Car Co 1934 Ltd on 21 November, 2011
Author: Kailash Gambhir
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO 491/2011
Judgment delivered on: 21st November, 2011
DELHI PROPERTIES & ORS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ajay Kohli, Adv.
versus
BRITISH MOTOR CAR CO 1934 LTD ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR:
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)
* CM No.21009/2011
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
FAO No.491/2011 & CM No.21010/2011
2. By way of this appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant seeks to challenge the order
dated 13.9.2011, whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the
application of the respondent moved by them under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
3. Arguing for the appellant, Mr. Ajay Kohli, learned counsel
submits that the order under challenge was passed by the learned
Additional District Judge in great haste and that too without granting
any opportunity to the appellant to address arguments on the said
injunction application. Counsel further submits that the learned
Additional District Judge has not given any reasons to allow the
application and, therefore, the appellant is not even in a position to
know as what in fact had prompted the learned Trial Court to allow
the application moved by the respondent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
5. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the learned
counsel representing the appellants, who are respondent nos.1 and 2
before the Court, prayed for some more time to file reply to the
application moved by the respondent/plaintiff under Order I Rule 10
of the CPC read with Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Since notice of the
said application could not be served on the proposed defendants to be
impleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs, therefore, the
respondent/plaintiff pressed for the interim injunction so as to seek a
restraint order against the present appellants not to alienate or part
with the possession or lease or licence the said premises to any third
party. The said prayer of the respondent for interim injunction was
allowed by the Court and the present appellants/defendants no. 1-2
were restrained from alienating, parting with possession or inducting
any other third party either by way of lease or licence the area under
their occupation. The contention raised by learned counsel for the
appellants is that after the passing of the said order, the appellants
would be deprived even to license the various portions of the premises
under their occupation in favour of its various customers although
the exclusive control and possession of the premises always remains
with the appellants. To demonstrate the nature of activities of the
appellants, reliance has been placed on Agreement dated 25.8.2008
executed by the appellants in favour of M/s. Metlife India Insurance
Co.Ltd. This Court is not inclined to give any view on the merits of the
controversy in the main suit or in the interim application.
6. However, this Court does find itself distressed to find that the
learned Additional District Judge has not given any reasons for
allowing the said application of the respondents under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2, CPC. It is a well settled legal position that to know that
the order should be a well reasoned and speaking order else without
spelling out the reasons, none of the parties can have the advantage
to know as to what in fact had transpired in the mind of the Court to
take one particular view. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish
2011(8)SCC670, the Court has again laid strong emphasis for the
Courts to give sufficient reasons in their orders to take one particular
view. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant para of the
said judgment as under:
"15. 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. 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.
16. 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."
7. In the present case, the appellants, in the impugned order, were
restrained from alienating, parting with possession or inducting any
third party either by way of lease or licence for the area under their
occupation and certainly such an order has a serious effect on the
rights of the appellants and such rights cannot be decided on taking a
prima facie view of the matter without in fact going into the
controversy and without giving an opportunity to both the parties to
address arguments. The order passed by the learned Additional
District Judge clearly shows that the same has been passed in a
cavalier manner and such an approach of a judicial officer of the rank
of Additional District Judge cannot be appreciated. This Court does
not find necessary to direct notice of the present appeal and deems it
fit to straightway remand the matter back to the learned Trial Court
to decide the application of injunction filed by the respondent afresh.
Needless to state, the learned Trial Court shall pass a reasoned order
afresh after affording both the parties an opportunity to address
arguments on the said application.
8. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
9. Dasti.
KAILASH GAMBHIR,J
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
tp
