Yashodamma vs Hanumaiah

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Respondent instituted suit for injunction against the Petitioner in respect of the plaint schedule property. Written statement was filed. The relief prayed in the suit was opposed. Issues were framed and substantial part of trial has taken place. I.A.3 was filed by the Plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. Detailed objection statement was filed to the application. The Trial Court, over looking the objections, passed an order dated 2.9.2009, whereby it allowed I.A.3. Said order was questioned in W.P.27905/2009. Noticing that, the order passed in I.A.3 impugned in the writ petition is not a reasoned order, the writ petition was allowed and the Trial Court was directed to reconsider I.A.3 on merits and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law by recording adequate reasons for the same. The Trial Court has passed the impugned order, whereby it has allowed the amendment prayed in I.A.3 in part. Aggrieved, the Defendant has filed this writ petition.

Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the writ papers.

The impugned order suffers from the same vice as was pointed out by this Court in the order dated 19.4.2010 passed in W.P.27905/2099. Though the detailed objection has been filed on 13.8.2009 by the Defendant, the same has not been considered. In the case of Punjab National Bank and Anr. v. Anwar Sheriff AIR 2007 Kar 9, it has been held as follows:

The desirability of a speaking order while dealing with the interim prayer sought for by a party cannot be lightly ignored, more so when both the parties have been heard and they have raised several contentions and as also when the same is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable lace of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out.

Since the trial has taken place, the proviso to Rule 17 under Order 6 is attracted. Whether there is due diligence on the part of the Plaintiff in filing I.A.3, has also not been considered. Without keeping in view the factors that apply in the matter of grant or otherwise of the amendment, the impugned order has been passed, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is irrational and illegal.

In the result, writ petition stands allowed. Impugned order stands quashed. The Trial Court is directed to reconsider I.A.3 keeping in view the observations made supra and also in the order dated 19.4.203,0 passed in W.P.27905/2009 and dispose of I.A.3 within a period of 2 weeks from the next hearing date of suit.

Contentions of both parties are kept open for consideration.