G. Saraswathi vs Rathinammal .

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2112 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.25814 of 2004]

G. Saraswathi & Anr. .. Appellants Versus

Rathinammal & Ors. .. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and

order dated 21.04.2004 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras in L.P.A. No.32 of 2000

whereby the Division Bench of the High Court

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.02.15 16:52:03 IST Reason: 1 decree dated 30.10.1998 passed by the Single Judge

of the High Court in A.S. No.630 of 1984.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass

and it would be clear from the facts stated

hereinbelow.

4. The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the

respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of

which this appeal arises.

5. The appellants filed a civil suit against the

respondents for specific performance of the

agreement. The respondents filed their written

statement and denied the material averments of the

appellants’ claim set up in the plaint. The Trial Court

on the basis of pleadings framed the issues. Parties

adduced their evidence. By Judgment/decree dated

03.07.1984, the Trial Court decreed the appellants’

suit.

2

6. The respondents felt aggrieved and filed appeal

before the Single Bench of the High Court. By

judgment/decree dated 30.10.1998, the Single Judge

allowed the respondents’ appeal and while setting

aside of the judgment/decree of the Trial Court

dismissed the appellants’ suit.

7. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed Letters

Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. By

impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the

appeal giving rise to filing of this appeal before this

Court by way of special leave.

8. The short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal, is whether the Division

Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing

the appellants’ Letters Patent Appeal.

3

9. Heard Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, learned counsel for

the appellants and Ms. Jyoti Parasher, learned

counsel for the respondents.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we are

constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the

impugned order and remand the case to the Division

Bench of the High Court for deciding the LPA afresh

on merits in accordance with law.

11. The impugned order reads as under:

“This L.P.A. coming on for hearing on Thursday the fifteen day April, 2004 upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the order of the Honourable Mr. Justice P. Thangavel dated 30.10.98 and made in the exercise of the Special Appellate Jurisdiction of the High Court in A.S. No. 630 of 1984 and all other papers material to this case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T.M. Hariharan, Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. K. Rakhunathan, Advocate for Ist respondent and steps not having been taken up to serve the notice to the Respondents 3 to 5 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:

4 (i) That the judgment and Decree dated 30.10.98 and made in the exercise of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court in A.S. No.630/1984 be and hereby are confirmed; and the letters patent appeal is dismissed; and

(ii) That there be no costs in this L.P.A.”

12. The need to remand the case to the High Court

has occasioned for the reason 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.

13. 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

5 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. In our opinion, 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(hereinafter

referred to as “the Code”).

14. Time and again, this 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

6 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. We can never

countenance the manner in which such order was

passed by the High Court which has compelled us to

remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the

appeal afresh on merits.

15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow

the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand

the case to the Division Bench of the High Court for

deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance

with law keeping in view our observations made supra.

7

16. We, however, make it clear that we have

refrained from making any observation on merits of

the controversy having formed an opinion to remand

the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned

above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the

appeal, uninfluenced by any of our observations,

strictly in accordance with law. Since the appeal is

quite old, we request the High Court to ensure

expeditious disposal of the appeal.

17. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned

order is set aside with the aforesaid directions.

….………………………………..J (R.K. AGRAWAL)

………..………………………………J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

New Delhi, February 15, 2018

8