JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 09.09.1999 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in S.A.T. No. 1082 of 1999 (re-numbered as S.A. No.740 of 1999) whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was summarily dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).

2) Few relevant facts need mention in brief infra.

3) The appellants herein are the defendants whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.

4) The respondents filed the civil suit being Title Suit No. 37 of 1991 before the Sub Divisional Court of the Munsif, Jhargram, District Midnapore against the appellants inter alia seeking partition in relation to the suit properties. The appellants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. Parties went to trial on the issues framed for its determination.

5) By judgment/decree dated 26.06.1992, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondents, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal being Title Appeal No. 240 of 1992 before the Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore. By judgment/decree dated 28.01.1999, the first Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, 6th Court) allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.

6) The appellants (defendants), felt aggrieved, filed second appeal being S.A.T. No.1082 of 1999 (re-numbered as S.A. No. 740 of 1999) before the High Court. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by special leave before this Court by the defendants.

7) The impugned order reads as under :

“This appeal is summarily dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

There will be no order as to costs.”

8) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned order, remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh after framing proper substantial questions of law, if found to arise in the case.

9) Mere perusal of the impugned order quoted supra would go to show that the High Court while deciding the appeal neither set out the facts nor the submissions urged by the appellants in support of their appeal and nor given any reason as to why the submissions urged by the appellants have no merit and why the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 100 of the Code. (See-2011 (6) SCC 455 -Jayanmti De & Anr. vs. Abani Kanta Barat and Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 455 and Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179).

10) This Court has consistently emphasized the need for assigning reasons in support of its conclusion and while doing so must deal with all the issues raised by the parties to the lis. Indeed, this Court has made the following very pertinent observations on this issue in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jai Prakash Singh & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 712 which read as under:

“Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment not sustainable. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.’ Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review