SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Maya Ram, son of late Mangal Ram - Petitioner 
Vs.
Asha Ram, son of late Mangal Ram - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 641 of 2023 
Decided On : 07-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Raj Shekhar Jha, Advocate

Judicial and quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Quashing of order - The petition challenges the order of the Civil Judge allowing objections to the pleader commissioner's report and directing a new appointment without providing reasons - The suit for partition involved brothers and property acquired by their father - The court emphasized the necessity of recording reasons for judicial decisions. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 11, 15)

(B) Judicial accountability - The court reiterated that quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure transparency and fairness in the justice delivery system. (Paras 4, 11, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks to quash an order allowing objections to a pleader commissioner's report in a partition suit among brothers, claiming that the court failed to provide reasons for its decision. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the order appointing a second commissioner without setting aside the first commissioner's report was illegal and a jurisdictional error. (Paras 12, 15)

Issues: The main issue was whether the court's failure to provide reasons for rejecting the first commissioner's report constituted a violation of legal principles. (Paras 4, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of reasons for rejecting the pleader commissioner's report violated the principles of natural justice and judicial accountability, necessitating a fresh consideration of the case. (Paras 4, 15)

Result: The impugned order is set aside, and the petition is restored for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

By order dated 21.10.2024 notice has been issued upon the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. The notice upon the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 has been served and the matter was adjourned for 02.12.2024 inspite of that nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 the matter was again adjourned for 06.01.2025 and further for today. Today, also nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and in view of that this matter is being heard in absence of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure-9) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Jamshedpur in Original Title Partition Suit No. 100 of 2006 whereby learned court has been pleased to allow the application of the respondents-plaintiffs dated 16.05.2014 objecting to the report submitted by the pleader commissioner dated 10.04.2014 and has been further pleased to direct the appointment of fresh pleader commissioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of drawing the attention of the Court to the impugned order submits that the learned court had only noted the arguments of both the sides and thereafter accepted the objection of the plaintiffs/respondents and not accepted the pleader commissioner report and a fresh pleader commissioner has been directed to be appointed. He further submits that the said suit was meant for partition and the plaintiffs and defendant, respondents and petitioner herein are brothers and the suit land in question, detailed in schedule of the plaint was acquired by their father namely, late Mangal Ram from his own independent income and the father of the parties constructed a single storey building over the suit land and remained in peaceful possession of the same before the demise on 05.05.1976 leaving behind three sons. He further submits that in the suit decree has been passed allocating to 1/ 3rd share to each of the brothers. Thereafter pleader commissioner has submitted report and objection was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. He further submits that in absence of any reason the pleader commissioner report was not accepted and new pleader commissioner has been directed to be appointed which is against the mandate of law. He further submits that unless there is any reason provided by the learned court the petitioner is not having any remedy either to wait for final decree or challenge the same as no reason has been provided and to buttress this argument, he relied in the case of “Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others” reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. He relied para 47 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:

“ 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice-must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top