The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Phulgita Devi vs Krishan Kmar & Ors. consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that orders which are bereft of reasoning cannot be termed as good order and are liable to be set aside in the revisional jurisdiction.
Facts
This revision petition was filed challenging the order of the learned Trial Court whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under O7R11 CPC was dismissed.
Procedural History
It was contended that this suit was filed after allowing of eviction petition filed by the defendant and dismissal of revision petition filed by the plaintiff. It was further stated that the plaintiff has not valued the suit property for the purposes of court fees as the value of the suit property has been enhanced. The Trial Court held that cannot be said that there was no cause of action against the defendant or that the plaintiff has filed the present suit without any cause of action and dismissed the same.
Observations of the Court
The Bench opined that:
“The Judge while passing an order has to not only record the case of the parties but also must give reasons for reaching to a conclusion. Orders which are bereft of reasoning cannot be termed as good order and are liable to be set aside in the revisional jurisdiction.”
In this case, it was observed that the learned Judge while passing the order did not give any reasoning at all for reaching to the conclusion. So, it cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
Judgment
The Bench allowed this petition and remanded the matter back to the learned Trial Court for disposal of the application under O7R11 CPC as per law.
Case: Phulgita Devi vs Krishan Kmar & Ors.
Citation: C.R.P.229/2018
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Decided on: 7th September 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
