Fauja Singh vs Jaspal Kaur
- Neutral1996 INSC 561
- SCR[1996] Supp (1) SCR 616
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A court hearing a civil revision petition where parties are present must assign reasons for its order of dismissal, however brief, rather than dismissing the petition by a bare order; the absence of reasons deprives the appellate forum of the circumstances that weighed with the court and constitutes an unsatisfactory method of disposal that cannot be sustained. The obligation to provide reasons for judicial orders introduces clarity, excludes or minimizes arbitrariness, and enables a higher forum to test the correctness of those reasons.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
The appellant had raised a specific plea in the executing court regarding the non-attachability of his residential house in view of the provisions of Section 60 (CCC) C.P.C. The executing court has not dealt with the issue and the High Court, also did not deal with that question and dismissed the civil revision petition by one word "dismissed". In our opinion, since the parties were present before the High Court in the civil revision, on the plainest consideration of justice, it should have assigned reasons for dismissing the civil revision petition against the order of the executing court. The absence of reasons has deprived this court to know the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the revision petition in limine. We say it with respect, that it was an unsatisfactory method of disposal of the revision petition. The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever, brief in support of its conclusion is too obvious to be reiterated. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes, or at any rate minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. The order of the High Court dismissing the civil revision petition, in-limine, thus, cannot be, sustained. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and remand the civil revision petition No. 2064/91 to the High Court for its disposal in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, We, however, clarify that we. are expressing no opinion on the merits of the civil revision petition.
The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No Costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free