IMPORTANT POINT
Order showing non application of mind and without any reason cannot be sustained.

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 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.

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.

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:

(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 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