Civil Review No.159 of 2003 ---- 1. Dhaneshwari Devi 2. Dhanwanti Devi Both daughters of Late Jodhi Gope. 3. Indradeo Yadav son of Late Jodhi Gope. Residents of Village Gango Bigha, P.S. Civil Lines (Old) Now-Rampur, District-Gaya. 4. Budhan Yadav son of Late Jodhi Gope, Resident of Village Rampur Tola Gango Bigha, P.S. Rampur (Old P.S. Civil Lines, Gaya, District-Gaya. -- Defendants-Appellants-Appellants-Petitioners. Versus Shushila Devi W/O Late Bhuneshwar Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Dulhinganj, P.S. Kotwali, District-Gaya. At present residing at Mohalla Sheopuri Colony, Katari Hill Road, P.S.Chandauti, District- Gaya. -- Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Opposite Party. ---- For the petitioners : M/s. Praveen Prakash & Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocates. For the opposite party : None. ---- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.HUSSAIN ---- S.N.Hussain, J. This petition has been filed by defendants-appellants-appellants- petitioners for review of order dated 07.08.2003 by which a Bench of this Court dismissed Second Appeal No.118 of 2001 at the stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It reads as follows:- “Heard. There is no merit in this Second Appeal. It is concluded by findings of fact. No substantial question of law is involved in it. The appeal is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.” 2. The aforesaid second appeal had arisen out of Title Suit No.64 of 1977 (02/1979) which was filed by the opposite party for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 06.09.1973 executed by the petitioners. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Execution Munsif, Gaya vide his judgment and decree dated 18.12.1979. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No.22 of 1980 (116/1999) which was dismissed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Gaya vide his judgment and - 2 - decree dated 23.01.2001. The defendants challenged the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below in this court vide Second Appeal No.118 of 2001 which was placed for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 07.08.2003. However, after hearing learned counsel for the defendants-appellants- appellants-petitioners, a Bench of this Court dismissed the second appeal in limine vide the aforesaid order which is sought to be reviewed in this case on the ground of absence of any reasoning given for dismissing the second appeal. 3. The law is well settled in this regard that even if the dismissal is under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court is not required under sub-rule (4) to record in brief its ground for doing so, it is not a carte blanche to enable the appellate court to avoid recording any reasoning whatsoever for passing the said order. In this regard, a decision of this court in case of Jayanmti De and another Vs. Abani Kanta Barat & Ors, reported in A.I.R. 2000 SC 3578(2) may be referred to. 4. In a similar matter, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had dismissed a second appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of contract in the same manner merely holding that there were concurrent findings and the points raised were dealt with by the courts below. The Hon’ble Apex Court took a very strict view of the matter and held that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the second appeal in the said manner as while considering the second appeal, the High Court ought to have considered the questions raised before it and decided the second appeal by a speaking and reasoned order. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of J & K Bank Limited Vs. Neelam Rani (Smt), reported in (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 630, may be seen. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid settled principle of law, this petition is allowed, order dated 07.08.2003 passed in Second Appeal No.118 of 2001 is hereby reviewed and recalled and the second appeal is placed in the same position which - 3 - remained as on the date of the impugned order and shall continue till it is heard again under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioners, who were the appellants in the second appeal, raised several points on the merits of the second appeal relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Manjunath Anandappa Urf Shivappa Hansi Vs. Tammanasa and others, reported in A.I.R. 2003 Supreme Court 1391. It may be noted that this is not a stage in which the question of merit of the second appeal is to be decided and the appellants-petitioners would be at liberty to raise all those points at the time of hearing of the second appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this civil review is allowed. (S.N.Hussain,J.) Patna High Court. Dated, the 24 July, 2009. N.A.F.R. Sunil