IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER M/s. Devi Food Products Vs. M/s. A-One Products (S. B. Civil Revision Petition No.14/2010) S. B. Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 26-10-2009 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.157/2009, whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been dismissed. Date of Order: August 19, 2010 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for the petitioner. Mr. G.D. Bansal, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 26-10-2009, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner under Sections 134 & 135 of Trade Mark Act and under Section 62 of the Copyright Act. The petitioner filed written statement and controverted the averments made in the suit by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for raising certain objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. The respondent did not file reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, vide order dated 26.10.2009, the learned Judge dismissed the application without going into the objections raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had raised three contentions before the learned Judge, namely that although the suit was filed on behalf of M/s A-One Products through its proprietor Shri Ramesh Chand Vijayvergia, however, there was no document to prove the fact that Mr. Vijayvergia was, indeed, the proprietor of the firm. Secondly, the cause of action did not arise in Jaipur as the petitioner-Company is functioning in Telegupalayam, Tamil Nadu and does not sell any of its products in Jaipur. Therefore, the court in Jaipur do not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Thirdly, although the plaintiff claims that the petitioner company has caused the plaintiff a loss of Rs.20 lacs, yet the valuation of the suit has not been done properly. Therefore, the proper court fees has not been paid. According to the learned counsel, despite the fact that these three contentions were raised before the learned Judge, the learned Judge has not discussed any of the contentions and has passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. 4. On the other hand, Mr. G.D. Bansal, the learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently contended that the order has been passed legally and validly. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that although the learned Judge had twice noticed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order, she has failed to discuss and has failed to give any judicial finding on any of the three contentions which were raised before her. The learned Judge has merely quoted a part of Section 134 of the Trademark Act without drawing any conclusion from the said quotation. It is, indeed, surprising that the order has been passed in such a highly cryptic manner. 7. Considering the fact that an order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is revisable before this court, the least that is expected from a learned Judge is that he/ she would pass a speaking order. It is imperative for this court to know the reasoning of the Judge for having dismissed, or for having allowed an application. In the absence of the reasoning, both the litigant and this court are left groping in the dark. A non-speaking order not only diminishes the faith of the people in the judiciary, but also increases the docket flooding the higher courts. Therefore, it is essential for the Judge to completely reveal his mind for the assessment of the higher courts. 8. Recently in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Vs. Shukla and Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785, the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of the Judges passing cryptic and non- speaking order. The Apex Court has observed as under:- Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases. Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty and helps in the observance of law of precedent. In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/ actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Thus, it will not be far from an absolute principle of law that the courts should record reasons for their conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To subserve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the courts should record reasons for their conclusion, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing. The Supreme court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant. (Emphasis Supplied) The court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting the claim/ prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be. The requirement of stating reasons for judicial orders necessarily does not mean a very detailed or lengthy order, but there should be some reasoning recorded by the court for declining or granting relief to the petitioner. While dealing with the matter at the admission stage even recording of concise reasons dealing with the merit of the contentions raised before the High Court may suffice, in contrast, a detailed judgment while the matter is being disposed of after final hearing may be more appropriate, but in both events, it is imperative for the High Court to record its own reasoning however short in might be. When reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that the process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented, but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. 9. Unfortunately, the impugned order is highly cryptic one. Therefore, this court has no other option, but to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26-10-2009. The case is remanded back to the learned Judge with the directions that the learned Judge should consider, examine, discuss and give judicial finding on each of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 10. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, allowed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. arn