Case: G. Saraswathi & Another Vs. Rathinammal & Others

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 21.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in L.P.A. No.32 of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1998 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in A.S. No.630 of 1984.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would be clear from the facts stated hereinbelow.4. The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.5. The appellants filed a civil suit against the respondents for specific performance of the agreement. The respondents filed their written statement and denied the material averments of the appellants’ claim set up in the plaint. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed the issues. Parties adduced their evidence. By Judgment/decree dated 03.07.1984, the Trial Court decreed the appellants’ suit.6. The respondents felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the Single Bench of the High Court. By judgment/decree dated 30.10.1998, the Single Judge allowed the respondents’ appeal and while setting aside of the judgment/decree of the Trial Court dismissed the appellants’ suit.7. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal giving rise to filing of this appeal before this Court by way of special leave.8. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’ Letters Patent Appeal.9. Heard Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Jyoti Parasher, learned counsel for the respondents.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]13. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and further without even mentioning the factual narration of the case set up by the parties, the findings of the two Courts as to how they dealt with the issues arising in the case in their respective jurisdiction and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the findings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld or reversed, while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court to sustain such order of the Division Bench. In our opinion, the disposal of the LPA by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to be in conformity with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind this principle while disposing of the appeal and passed a cryptic and unreasoned order. Such order undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. We can never countenance the manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits.