Manoharlal vs Smt. Radhabai Rathore W/O Purushottam
2024 Latest Caselaw 12170 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manoharlal vs Smt. Radhabai Rathore W/O Purushottam on 1 May, 2024

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                       1
                          IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                              ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
                                           MISC. PETITION No. 139 of 2024

                         BETWEEN:-
                         MANOHARLAL S/O JADAWCHAND, AGED ABOUT 66
                         YEARS, R/O. 62, NAYAPURA, TEHSIL TARANA, DISTRICT
                         UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI A.S. GARG, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI JITENDRA
                         SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

                         AND
                         1.    SMT. RADHABAI RATHORE W/O PURUSHOTTAM
                               S/O LATE JADAWCHAND, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                               R/O.62, NAYAPURA, TEHSIL TARANA, DISTRICT
                               UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    RATANLAL S/O JADAWCHAND, AGED ABOUT 74
                               YEARS, R/O.- 63, NAYAPURA, TEH. TARANA DIST.
                               UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    SMT. RAJAMANI BAI W/O LATE MADANLAL
                               THROUGH    RAMGOPAL   RATHORE,     R/O.-
                               RANGREG BAWDI, SARANGPUR DIST. RAJGARH
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    SMT. SEETABAI W/O MOHANLAL DECEASED
                               THROUGH LRS DINESH S/O MOHANLAL
                               CHOUHAN,   AGED  ABOUT   50  YEARS, 259
                               AMBIKAPURI STATION ROAD, DIST. INDORE
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    SMT. SEETABAI W/O MOHANLAL DECEASED
                               THROUGH LRS SMT. SANGEETA W/O RAJENDRA,
                               AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 7 ABHINAV HOMES FANS
                               AYODHYA, BYPASS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         6.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT
                               UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 5/6/2024
5:56:35 PM
                                                               2
                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI KOUSTUBH PATHAK - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
                         (BY SHRI SATYA NARAYAN VYAS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                         RESPONDENT /CAVEAT)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                               ORDER

1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant No.2 has challenged the order dated 5/12/2023 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.8/2023 by the District Judge Tarana, District Ujjain whereby the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 21/7/2023 passed by the trial Court allowing an application under Order 39 Rule

1 and 2 of the CPC preferred by plaintiff/respondent No.1 has been dismissed.

2. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court shows that from paragraph No.1 up to paragraph No.8 it has reproduced the facts of the case and the arguments of the respective sides. Thereafter application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC has been considered and rejected. Then from para No.15 up to para No. 20 the appellate Court has only recorded the fact of the plaintiff claiming title on the basis of a will and has cited the judgments relied upon by defendant No.2 and has observed that they are not applicable to the facts of the case and has merely recorded that the order passed by the trial Court has not been shown to be erroneous.

3 . The trial Court had passed a detailed order while deciding the application for issuance of temporary injunction. The said order had been assailed by defendant No.2 before the appellate Court and various grounds had been raised in the appeal. Those grounds were required to be adverted to by the appellate Court and reasons recorded for either accepting or not accepting them. The appellate Court has however only reproduced the facts of the case

and arguments of the parties and has recorded in the passing that the trial Court has not committed any error in giving its opinion. The said order cannot be said to be a speaking order since the same lacks reasons. While it is open for the appellate Court to generally confirm the findings of the trial Court but even in that case it has to record some reasons even though brief as to why it is agreeing with the findings of the trial Court. Merely observing its agreement in passing of the order of trial Court cannot be said to be judicial determination of the grounds as raised by defendant No.2.

4. It has been held by the Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496 that necessity of giving reasons by a body or authority in support of its decision is mandatory. Reasons have always to be recorded in support of conclusions. Since the said principle is applicable upon an authority, the same is applicable in much greater force upon a Court like the appellate Court in the present matter.

5. The impugned order passed by the appellate Court being bereft of any discussion and reasons cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to it to rehear and redecide the appeal preferred by defendant No.2 in accordance with law and the observations as above. It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

6. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-