IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1128 of 2008 SMT. RAJMATI DEVI & ANR Versus BHUNESHWAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 2 08.08.2008 Heard counsel for the Plaintiff- petitioners. There seems to be merit in the submission of the petitioners that in absence of any reason whatsoever the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff- petitioner for appointment of Pleader Commissioner the same must be held to be a clear jurisdictional error for its being interfered by this Court in its revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). Two applications were filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioners on 7.5.2008 and 7.6.2008 in the court below seeking appointment for Pleader Commissioner to find out the exact status of disputed Plot Nos. 324 and 336. The Court below however had rejected such prayer by passing the following order : - ^^mHk; i{kksa dh gktjh rFkk izfroknh dh vksj ls 7@6@08 ds vkyksd esa Rejoinder nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA okn iqdkjk x;kA vf/koDrkx.k U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSaSA oknh dk vkosnu fnukad 7@5@08 ,oa 7@6@08 - 2 - dk vkosnu dks [kkfjt fd;k x;kA fnukad 26@6@08 dks oknh viuk xokg yk;saA** In the opinion of the Court, there can be no justification in passing such a bald, cryptic and non-speaking order, which infact to say the least is a perverse order. Any order passed by a Court in judicial proceeding is definitely required to be backed by reasons in absence whereof its correctness or otherwise cannot be effectively gone into by this Court. This Court is not unmindful of the discretionary powers under order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. but that would not authorize the court below to reject such prayer for appointment of Pleader Commissioner without recording any reason whatsoever. The Court below was infact under obligation to deal with the contention of the parties and record its reason, in brief, even if it was inclined to reject such prayer. That is the minimum requirement and mandate of law. In that view of the matter, this Court while setting aside the impugned order would direct the Court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It is however made clear - 3 - that the Court below will be at liberty to pass such fresh speaking order in the light of the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case without being influenced by the observations made above in this order. This Civil Revision application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)