IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P. JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3507 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- OS.680/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM ............................................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.G.KARUNAKARAN NAIR , S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR CHOORAKKATTIL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.A.SREEKALA SMT.C.R.DIYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- A.N.THAMPY AMBALAKUNNEL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE KOTTAYAM TALUK PIN 686 028. BY ADV. SRI. LIJI. J.VADAKEDOM THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS OP(C) NO. 3507 OF 2011 (O) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ;- EXT. P1 COPY OF THE IA.NO. 3180/2009 IN OS. NO. 680/2008 DT.3.10.2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT. P2 COPY OF THE IA.3179/2009 IN OS NO. 680/2008 DT.3.10.2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT. P3 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN IA. NO.3180/2009. EXT. P4 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN IA. NO. 3179/2009. EXT. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO.3180/2009. EXT. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO.3179/2009. EXT. P7 COPY OF THE IA.NO.743/2010 IN OS. NO.680/2008. EXT. P8 COPY OF THE IA.NO.743/2010 IN OS.NO.680/2008. EXT. P9 COPY OF THE IA.NO.3452/2010 IN OS.NO.680/2008. EXT. P10 COPY OF THE IA.NO.3451/2010 IN OS.NO.680/2008. EXT. P11 COPY OF THE IA.NO.3452/2010 IN OS.NO.680/2008. EXT. P12 COPY OF THE IA.NO.3451/2010 IN OS.NO.680/2008. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3507 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.680 of 2011 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam challenges Exts.P11 and P12, orders passed by the learned Sub Judge on Exts.P9 and P10, applications, respectively. Petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of an (alleged) agreement for sale and that resulted in an exparte decree in favour of petitioner. Respondent filed Exts.P1 and P2, applications to set aside the exparte decree and to condone the delay. Petitioner preferred Exts.P3 and P4, objections. Learned Sub Judge allowed the applications on terms of cost of `1,000/- payable within the time prescribed. Since cost as aforesaid was not paid/deposited within the prescribed time, Exts.P1 and P2, applications culminated in its dismissal by Exts.P5 and P6, orders dated 20.02.2010. That was followed by the respondent filing Ext.P7, application for review. That application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge for the reason that there is no prayer to restore I.A.No.3180 of 2009 and the cost as ordered on Exts.P1 and P2, applications was not paid. A further attempt respondent made is by Exts.P9 and P10, applications “under Sections 144 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure” (for short, “the Code”) “to set aside the dismissal of Exts.P1 and P2, applications by Exts.P5 and P6, orders dated 20.02.2010”. Those applications are allowed by the learned Sub Judge by Exts.P11 and P12, orders which are under challenge. OP(C)No.3507/2011 2 2. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff contends that Exts.P11 and P12, orders are non-speaking orders and hence, not sustainable for that reason alone. It is further contended that though, the provisions of law quoted in Exts.P9 and P10, applications are Secs.144 and 151 of the Code if the same is to be treated as an application for review of the order dated 20.02.2010, respondent cannot get over the hurdle created by the dismissal of Ext.P7, application for the reason that there is no apparent error on the face of record to be reviewed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that petitioner is not seen to have preferred any objection to Exts.P9 and P10, applications. According to the learned counsel, notwithstanding the order on Ext.P7, application it was possible for the respondent to seek to set aside or review of Exts.P5 and P6, orders dated 20.02.2010 on the grounds set forth in Exts.P9 and P10, applications. 4. I am persuaded to accept the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that Exts.P11 and P12, orders are liable to be set aside for the short reason that it is an order which is not reasoned. Ext.P11, order reads: “Heard. Cost deposited. So the prayer allowed”. Ext.P12, order is more cryptic as it reads: “Cost deposited. So this is allowed”. 5. Time and again it has been held that a judicial order is required to OP(C)No.3507/2011 3 be a reasoned order for, the litigants and the superior courts are entitled to know the reason for the decision which the court has arrived at. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and brothers ((2010) 4 SCC 785) at paragraph 24 says that reason is the very life of law, when the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases and giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. It is further stated in the said decision that the reasons are soul of orders and that not recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; first, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly hamper the proper administration of justice. 6. The question whether treating Exts.P9 and P10, applications as for review of Exts.P5 and P6, orders dated 20.02.2010, learned Sub Judge could have allowed Exts.P9 and P10, applications for the reasons stated by the petitioner, is a matter which is left to the decision of learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides. If petitioner has not so far filed any objection to Exts.P9 and P10, applications learned Sub Judge shall give him opportunity to prefer objection if any to the said applications. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed. Exts.P11 and P12, orders are set aside and Exts.P9 and P10, applications are remitted to the learned Sub OP(C)No.3507/2011 4 Judge for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above and after giving petitioner opportunity to prefer objection if any to the said applications, if it is not already preferred. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks