Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Madan Gopal Vyas , J.
Gen Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Praveen Chouhan and anr. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 179 of 2018
Decided On : 13-12-2023
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Revision
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) The court emphasized that a reasoned order is essential to avoid substantial failure of justice. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-defendant challenged the trial Court's order rejecting their application for permanent injunction, claiming the order was vague and non-speaking.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to its non-speaking nature.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the trial Court's order was adequately reasoned and addressed the objections raised.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to provide cogent findings in the order constituted a substantial injustice.
Result: The revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Narendra Thanvi
For the Respondent: Mr. B.L. Choudhary
ORDER :
Madan Gopal Vyas, J.
By the instant revision petition, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 petitioner-defendant has challenged order dated 29.08.2018, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Bheem, District Rajsamand (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, by the order impugned has rejected application of the petitioner-defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in a suit for permanent injunction laid by respondent-plaintiffs.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court has not examined the matter in its entirety and the impugned order is absolutely vague and non-speaking order. Learned counsel further submits that if the order impugned is allowed to stand then there would be substantial failure of justice. Therefore, it is prayed that the revision petition may be allowed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned trial Court has passed a reasoned order and no interference is warranted.
4. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparently shows that none of the objections made in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with 151 CPC has been dealt with by learned trial Court and only while mentioning the arguments of the respective parties, without giving any cogent findings, the learned trial Court straight way rejected the application.
5. In view of the above, it is clear that the order dated 29.08.2018 is non-speaking one and the same is not sustainable.
6. Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Court below for deciding the application of the petitioner-defendant under Order 7, Rule --11-- CPC afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties strictly in accordance with law.
