AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The petitioner/respondent/plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition, as against the order, dated 05.07.2010, in
I.A. No. 755 of 2010 in O.S. No. 409 of 1998, passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur. The Learned Principal District Munsif,
Alandur, while passing the order in I.A. No. 755 of 2010 in O.S. No. 409 of 1998, dated 05.07.2010, has categorically observed that counter
has not been filed to I.A. No. 755 of 2010 and resultantly allowed the petition.
Assailing the correctness of the cryptic and non speaking order passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, in I.A. No. 755 of
2010 in O.S. No. 409 of 1998, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff urges before this Court that the said order has been passed by the
trial Court without application of mind. Further, the trial Court has not spelt out any reason for allowing the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.
755 of 2010 (filed by the respondents/defendants as petitioners, praying for issuance of an order re-open their side of evidence for examining
Taluk surveyor to give evidence in the main suit) and therefore, the said order is an unjust one, in so far it relates to the revision petitioner/plaintiff.
Consequently, the petitioner/plaintiff is an aggrieved person and therefore, in law is very much entitled to project the present Civil Revision Petition
before this Court.
At this stage, mere running over the contents of affidavit in I.A. No. 755 of 2010 in O.S. No. 409 of 1998 (filed by the respondents/defendants
as petitioners) clearly point out that the respondents have sought permission from the trial Court to re-open the case for examining the Taluk
Surveyor of the present Sholinganallur Taluk Office and also to re-open the defendant''s side to examine the said Surveyor and to produce relevant
register such as chitta register, etc. In effect, the respondents/petitioners/defendants, have sought permission of the trial Court to re-open the
defendant''s side evidence for the purpose mentioned supra.
Admittedly before the trial Court, no counter has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff to I.A. No. 755 of 2010, inspite of repeated
opportunities given by the trial Court. From 03.06.2010, till 05.07.2010 in I.A. No. 755 of 2010, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has not chosen to
file counter. Finally, the trial Court, on 05.07.2010, has been perforced to pass the single line, cryptic, non speaking order, which runs thus:-
Counter not filed. Petition is allowed.
The said order, in the considered opinion of this Court, bristles with infirmities and illegalities in the eye of law. In this connection, this Court
opines that the said order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 755 of 2010 in O.S. No. 409 of 1998, dated 05.07.2010 as stated supra is bereft
of qualitative and quantitative reasoning.
An unjust order may be right from the point of view of the person who passes the said order. But to the affected/aggrieved, the said unjust order
will give a cause of action or lever to him to take up the matter before the higher forum.
In law, the trial Court''s order must be a reasoned and speaking one. Atleast an outline of process of reasoning should be made mention of.
Needless to state that an unreasoned order may be just, but may not appear to be sound to the individual affected. Per contra, a reasoned order
will have the appearance of justice.
As far as the present case is concerned, the single line order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 755 of 2010 in O.S. No. 409 of 1998, on
05.07.2010 to the effect that ''counter not filed'' is not a just, fair, equitable, and reasoned order. Per contra, the same is a non speaking order,
bereft of quantitative and qualitative details and as such, to prevent aberration of justice, it is liable to be set aside, in the eye of law.
Viewed in that prospective, this Court in furtherance of substantial cause of justice, interferes with the said order by exercising its Revisional
Jurisdiction and allows the present Civil Revision Petition. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own
costs. The order passed by the learned trial Court in I.A. No. 755 of 2010 in O.S. No. 409 of 1998, dated 05.07.2010, is set aside for the
reasons assigned in this Civil Revision Petition. The trial Court is directed to take the I.A. No. 755 of 2010 in O.S. No. 409 of 1998, afresh on its
file and to dispose of the same on merits, by hearing the parties in an objective, fair and satisfactory fashion, to pass a reasoned order on merits
assigning reasons for arriving at a particular conclusion. Liberty is granted to the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff to file counter before the trial Court to
I.A. No. 755 of 2010 in O.S. No. 409 of 1998 within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereupon, the trial Court after
providing due opportunities to the parties, is directed to pass a fair and just considered order in I.A. No. 755 of 2010 in O.S. No. 409 of 1998 on
its file in the manner known to law and in accordance with law at an early date. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous Petition is closed.