G. SARASWATHI & ANR. versus RATHINAMMAL & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 15-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
G. SARASWATHI & ANR.
v.
RATHINAMMAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2112 of 2018)
  FEBRUARY 15, 2018
   [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, r.31 – Appellants
filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance of
agreement – Trial Court decreed the suit – Single Judge, High Court
set aside the judgment/decree of the trial Court – Aggrieved,
appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench,
which dismissed the appeal – Propriety of – Held: Not proper –
Case remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding
the LPA afresh on merits in accordance with law – The reason is
that the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellants(plaintiffs) cursorily without dealing with any of the issues
arising in the case as also the arguments urged by the parties in
support of their case – In the absence of any application of judicial
mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal
and further without even mentioning the factual narration of the
case set up by the parties, the findings of the two Courts as to how
they dealt with the issues arising in the case in their respective
jurisdiction and without there being any discussion, appreciation,
reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the
findings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld or reversed,
while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legal
principles applicable to the case, it is difficult to sustain such order
of the Division Bench – Disposal of LPA by the Division Bench of
the High Court not in conformity with the requirements of Or. XLI,
r.31 CPC.
Judgments/Orders – Reasoned order – Emphasis on Courts
to pass reasoned order in every case.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The need to remand the case to the High Court
has occasioned for the reason that the Division Bench dismissed
[2018] 2  S.C.R. 548
548
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
549
the appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) cursorily without
dealing with any of the issues arising in the case as also the
arguments urged by the parties in support of their case.  [Para
12] [551-F]
2.  Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind
to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and
further without even mentioning the factual narration of the case
set up by the parties, the findings of the two Courts as to how
they dealt with the issues arising in the case in their respective
jurisdiction and without there being any discussion, appreciation,
reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the
findings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld or reversed,
while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of
legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court
to sustain such order of the Division Bench.  The disposal of the
LPA by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to
be in conformity with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [Para 13]  [551-G-H; 552-A]
3.  Time and again, Supreme Court has emphasized on the
Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must
contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to
the lis, the issues arising the case, the submissions urged by the
parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and
the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues in support
of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench
failed to keep in mind this principle while disposing of the appeal
and passed a cryptic and unreasoned order. Such order
undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived
them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other
has lost. [Para 14] [552-B-D]
4.  The case remanded to the Division Bench of the High
Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with
law. [Para 15] [552-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2112
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2004 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in L. P. A. No. 32 of 2000.
G. SARASWATHI & ANR. v. RATHINAMMAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
P. V. Yogeswaran, Ashish Kr. Upadhyay, Bhuvan Jayant, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Ms. Jyoti Parasher, N. J. Ramchander, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHA

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.