Courts must provide reasoned orders when deciding procedural applications to uphold fair trial rights and ensure proper judicial process.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the following order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ("the learned ASCJ') in Suit CS 455/2017 (Sudesh Chhikara vs. Baljeet Singh) to the extent the impugned order allows the application of the respondent - plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") and rejects the application of the petitioners - defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:

"27.11.2018

Through this common order, both the applications, one filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and another filed by the plaintiff no.l under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC shall be disposed off.

Present: Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Arguments have already been heard.

It is contended by the defendants that the suit is without any cause of action and the same is liable to be rejected, it is also contended that there are no documents filed by the plaintiffs in this case to support their pleadings and the same is filed just to extract money from them.

It is the contention of the plaintiffs and that the plot is different from the suit property. It is also contended that the plaintiffs are relying upon a Family Settlement and that the husband of the plaintiff no.1 was the only son amongst six daughters.

So far as the application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is concerned, it is the plea taken by the plaintiff that the defendants were duly served on 21.04.2017 but have filed the written statement only on 04.08.2017 with a delay of more than 3 months. It is the plea of the defendants that they are old aged persons and that the delay may be condoned.

Record perused.

This is a suit for declaration arid mandatory injunction pending since April, 2017 wherein, issues are yet to be settled. Admittedly, summons/notice issued to defendant no. 1 received back refusal report on 21.04.2017 and the similarly, defendant no.2 was also served on the very same day i.e. 21.04.2017. Admittedly, written statement was filed by them only on 04.08.2017 and that too with a delay of 2 and half months. Admittedly, no application for seeking condonation of delay was filed by the defendants alongwith the written statement for the reasons best known to them. It need not be mentioned that at the time of disposal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments of the plaint are to be seen. In these circumstances, application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is dismissed being devoid of merits and application filed by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is allowed. Consequently, the defence of the defendants is hereby struck off.

Both the applications stand disposed off.

Be listed for Admission/Denial of documents and also for framing of issues on 15.02.2019."

2. Insofar as the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is concerned, it is clear from a reading of the impugned order dated 27th November 2018 that the learned ASCJ has rejected the application with no reason whatsoever. As such, the rejection, by the learned ASCJ, of the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is liable to be set aside, even on that score.

3. Adverting, now, to the respondents' application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the respondents had, by the said application, sought striking off the written statement filed by the petitioner, as the defendants in the suit, on 4th August 2017, from the record of the suit. The impugned order allows the said application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the facts stated in the impugned order regarding the rece