Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia J. (Oral) - CM No.26340-CII of 2014

1. Application, filed for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures R1 to R3 and Annexures R5 to R9 is allowed.

2. Reply, filed on behalf of the respondents, along with the abovementioned documents are taken on record.

CR No.7190 of 2014

3. Challenge in the present revision petition, by the plaintiff-petitioners, is to the order dated 11.07.2014, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application, filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, by recording that the basic principles of natural justice had been violated and the applicants had been condemned unheard. Accordingly, costs of Rs.2000/- had been imposed and the defendants were allowed to file written statement, after making payment of costs and the ex parte judgment dated 22.09.2008 had been set aside.

4. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the present petitioners had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance for an agreement to sell dated 22.12.2006, pertaining to the land described in the heading of the plaint. The defendants did not appear to contest the suit despite service through publication in the newspaper and they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 08.11.2007. The petitioners appeared in the witness box and examined three witnesses and thereafter, the suit was decreed on 22.09.2008 in their favour, pertaining to 24 kanals of land. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed by the defendants in September, 2010 on the ground that no registered cover had been served upon the applicants and that wrong and incorrect address had been given. The application was opposed by taking the plea that as per the decree, sale deed had already been executed by the Local Commissioner, appointed by the Court, after completing all necessary formalities and that the application was time-barred.

5. As noticed above, in a cursory manner, the Trial Court, without going into the issue of limitation and whether there was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree allowed the application, which is now subject matter of challenge. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC talk about the satisfaction of the Court regarding service of summons or whether there was any sufficient cause which prevented the defendants from not appearing when the suit was called for hearing. It is trite law that the Courts have to give reasons in respect of their order. Merely by recording a finding that nobody should be condemned unheard, the valuable rights of the plaintiffs have been set aside, after a period of 6 years. The issue of reasoned order has been discussed by the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs. Jai Prakash Singh and another, AIR 2007 SC 1363. Relevant paras read as under:-

“7. 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.

8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All E.R. 1148 observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 LCR 120 it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. 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 in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is