AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Respondent 11 had filed I.A. 2 to implead it as additional respondent. The application was objected to by the plaintiffs. The Trial Court has allowed I.A. 2 by its order dated 8.9.2009. Said order is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record.
Though the prayer for impleading has been objected to before the Court below on various grounds and the same are reiterated before me, I deem it unnecessary to consider the grounds in opposition to I.A. 2 in view of the fact that the impugned order is not a considered order. In para 8 and part of para 9, the Trial Court only refers to the contentions of the parties and has concluded as follows:
Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that this applicant is necessary party to the suit for final disposal of suit. Hence, I answer point No. 1 accordingly.
Necessity to give reasons which disclose proper appreciation of issues before the Court needs no emphasis since reasons introduce clarity and minimise the chances of arbitrariness. Reasons are the links between the material facts and the conclusion. The same is not forthcoming in the impugned order.
Since no reasons are forthcoming in support of the conclusions arrived at to allow I.A. 2, there is procedural impropriety as well as irrationality on the part of the Trial Court in passing the order.
Hence, writ petition stands allowed. Impugned order stands quashed. I.A. 2 shall be reconsidered in accordance with law by the Trial Court with expedition.
All contentions of both the parties are kept open for consideration.