2019 (4) TMI 1803 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal - Eviction petition - HELD THAT - We are constrained to allow these appeals set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appellant s writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned because from the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 quoted above we find that it is an unreasoned order. In other words the High Court neither discussed the issues arising the case nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has dismissed the writ petition. The orders impugned in these appeals suffer from the aforesaid error because as would be clear from the perusal of the order the High Court while passing the impugned order simply dismissed the writ petition without any discussion finding and the reason - such order is not legally sustainable and hence deserves to be set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh out of which these appeals arise for its disposal in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
2. Whether the impugned order is legally sustainable.
3. Requirement of reasoned orders in judicial decisions.
4. Necessity to remand the case to the High Court for a fresh decision.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant filed an eviction petition against the respondents, which was decreed by the Civil Judge. The respondents appealed, and the first Appellate Court allowed the appeal, leading to a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 27.07.2012, affirming the first Appellate Court's decision. The Supreme Court found the High Court's order to be unreasoned, lacking discussion on the issues and submissions, thus remanding the case for a fresh decision.

Issue 2: The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was not legally sustainable due to its lack of reasoning and discussion. It emphasized the necessity for judicial or quasi-judicial orders to be supported by reasons to understand the basis of the conclusion. As the High Court's order lacked reasoning, it was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

Issue 3: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that every judicial order must be supported by reasons to enable parties to understand the basis of the decision. It cited various precedents to emphasize the importance of providing reasons in judicial decisions to ensure transparency and enable effective review by appellate courts.

Issue 4: Due to the absence of reasoning in the impugned order, the Supreme Court decided to remand the case to the High Court for a fresh decision on the appellant's writ petition. The Court clarified that its decision to remand did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, instructing the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court's observations, preferably within six months.