Jarnail Singh Alias Angrej Singh and others vs Mushi Ram and others

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a Plaintiff''s revision petition against the order dated 6th March, 1969, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, patiala, dismissing their application under Order 23, Rule 1, CPC Code.

Jarnail Singh and his brother Balkar Singh instituted a suit challanging the sale of certain agricultural land made by their mother Shrimati Bal Kaur in favour of Munshi Ram and others. Their case was that the said land belonged to their father Natha Singh, who had died in Pakistan in 1947. On the partition of the country, when the Petitioners migrated to India, they were minors. Their mother Bal Kaur made an application to the Custodian that her sons, that is, the Petitioners, be allotted land in lieu of the land left by the family in Pakistan. The department according to the Petitioners, wrongly made the allotment in their mother''s name although she in their presence had no right to the allotment of the land. The land in dispute, however, remained in possession of the Petitioner.

In the written statement filed by the Defendants in the suit, they took up the plea that the land was purchased by them from Bal Kaur on the basis of the allotment sanad having been made in her favour by the Rehabilitation authorities.

Thereupon, the Petitioners made an application to the Rehabilitation authorties for correcting the mistake in the allotment order. Subsequently, they filed in application under Order 23, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh one in respect of the same subject-matter. It was alleged by them in the said application that it was only after the written statement had been filed by the Defendants that they came to know that the Rehabitation authorities had issued the allotment sanad in favour of their mother. The said allotment could not be made to her in law and it seemed that the allotment secured by her was based on fraud and misrepresentation of facts. It was, according to them, the jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation authorities to see whether or not the allotment of land had been made correctly and for that purpose they had moved them. The Rehabilitation authorities had not been made a party to the suit and no notice u/s 80 of the CPC was served upon them. The suit was therefore, liable to fail on the said formal defects.

By the impugned order, the trial Judge dismissed the application saying-"Present counsel for the parties. Olders announced. Application under Order 23 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed. To come up for arguments on application u/s 10, CPC on 18th March. 1969."

The revision petition is accepted on the short ground that the order passed by the learned trial Judge was not a speaking one An application under order 23 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, had been made by the Plaintiffs giving certain grounds therein While rejecting the same, the learned Judge should have given the reasons for doing so. There was no use passing such a cryptic order which neither give the facts of the case nor the allegations mentioned in the application which was being disposed of by the said order and nor the reasons for rejecting the prayer made in that appliaction.

As a result, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned order set aside and the learned Judge is directed to write a fresh order after healing the parties.