AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.—Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned senior Advocate appears for the appellant. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest the case in the Court below. Therefore, on the prayer of Mr. Mitra, learned senior Advocate for the appellant, and at the risk of the appellant, service of notice of appeal on the said respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is dispensed with.
Mr. Samit Talukdar, learned senior Advocate appears for the respondent No. 3. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appears for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
Both Mr. Talukdar and Mr. Banerjee accept notice of this appeal and ail formalities are dispensed with.
By consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the contesting parties, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing treating it as on day''s list.
A suit for redemption of mortgage was instituted. In the said suit an application being GA No. 1314 of 2013 was filed by one Haider Khan, who applied for his addition claiming purported title in the property in the suit.
The application was not listed for hearing, but the Hon''ble Single Judge treated such application as on day''s list and allowed the application by directing addition of the said Haider Khan.
There was no application on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing for them submits that an affidavit was filed. The Hon''ble Single Judge, nevertheless, directed addition of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as parties in the suit.
With respect we are of the opinion that the order cannot stand for a moment''s scrutiny.
Every order must have reasons in support of it. There is no reason as to why the presence of those persons were necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
A Division Bench of this Court in Supratik Ghosh and Another Vs. M/s. Pasari Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., observes, "reason is the soul of an order. An order without reason is a body without soul. It is now well settled in our judicial discipline that any order passed by the Court should ordinarily be supported by the reasons because the reasons express the thought process of the Court which weighed with the Court to pass such order. Mere quoting a few words from the statute or reiteration of something from the pleading would not amount to reason. I am of the view that the order which is subject matter of the present appeal did not disclose any reason why the interim order was necessary and passed by the Court. In my opinion, an order even if it is of a Court is not supported by any reason that would render the order arbitrary, fanciful and vague. Even an order of a Court cannot be permitted to be arbitrary, fanciful or vague."
The Hon''ble Single Judge, also, granted liberty to Rukmini Properties Private Limited, the plaintiff, to deposit the mortgage money together with the interest with the learned Registrar, Original Side, who was directed to invest the same in the Term Deposit with the State Bank of India, Kolkata High Court Branch.
Mr. Mitra, learned senior Advocate for the appellant, submits that pursuant to the liberty granted his client has deposited the money.
We, therefore, only set aside the order impugned directing addition of respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the suit.
We restore the application for addition of party filed by Haider Khan. We request the Hon''ble Single Judge to consider the application for addition of party filed by Haider Khan, being GA 1314 of 2013, on merits and after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
There was no application on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, namely, Bibi Jan, Muktar Sapui and Noor Jahan Tarafdar @ Chhota Khatoon. As prayed for by Mr. Banerjee, liberty is, also, granted to them to apply for addition of parties in accordance with law.
We, however, record we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the said application for addition of parties.
The appeal is, thus, allowed. We make no order as to costs.
Asim Kumar Mondal, J.
I agree.