Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4444
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
Sohan Lal Dutta @ Sohan Singh Dutta - Appellant
Versus
Vinay Kumar - Respondent
CR No. 5978 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-09-2018
Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R.C. Chauhan, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos 1 and 2; Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 3
The importance of providing reasoned orders in legal proceedings and the requirement for the trial Court to justify its decisions.
Headnote:
Order 23 Rule 1 CPC - Challenge to Order Allowing Withdrawal of Suit and Filing Fresh One
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the order of the trial Court allowing the respondents-plaintiffs to withdraw the suit and file a fresh one on the same cause of action. The trial Court's order lacked reasoning and was deemed wholly cryptic.
Finding of the Court:
The petition is allowed, and the order allowing withdrawal of the suit and filing a fresh one is set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass a reasoned order on the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 23, Rule 1 CPC within two months.
Issues: Challenge to order allowing withdrawal of suit and filing fresh one without reasoning
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the trial Court's order to be wholly cryptic and lacking in reasoning, thus setting it aside and directing the trial Court to pass a reasoned order within a specified period.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed, and the order allowing withdrawal of the suit and filing a fresh one is set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass a reasoned order on the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 23, Rule 1 CPC within two months.
JUDGMENT
Amol Rattan Singh, J.(Oral) - By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the learned trial Court [Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot], dated 30.05.2015, by which the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 23, Rule 1 (3) CPC, seeking to withdraw the suit and file a fresh one by removing what is termed therein as a formal defect in the pleadings, has been allowed, and the respondents plaintiffs granted permission to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh one on the same cause of action
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents plaintiffs had earlier filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of the plaint, which had been dismissed by the trial Court. In that application, the plaintiffs had contended that due to illegal excavation of the earth, for construction of a building by the petitioner, damage had been caused to the building of the plaintiffs (as contended), and therefore the suit may be allowed to be amended, to seek damages for the loss caused to the plaintiffs.
3. That application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 27.01.2015 (a copy of the order being Annexure P-4), with the said order having become final.
4. He then draws attention to the application filed under Order 23, Rule 1 (copy Annexure P-5), wherein withdrawal of the suit is sought to file a suit for damages, which is the same reasoning given as in the application under Order 11, Rule 17.
5. The contention therefore is that despite the 2nd application being one seeking the same relief as was sought by the earlier application filed under Order 11, Rule 17, it has now been allowed by the trial Court, despite the dismissal of that application, with no reasoning whatsoever given in the impugned order.
6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.05.2015 (Annexure P-7) shows that not one reason has been given by the Civil Judge for allowing the application, with the entire order being contained in one page, the last part of which reads as follows:-
"Arguments heard. Application under Order 23, Rule 1 CPC is allowed and liberty is granted to the plaintiffs to withdraw the present suit and file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Liberty is granted to withdraw this suit and file a fresh suit. File be consigned to the record room."
7. In view of the above, the order being wholly cryptic and without any reasoning whatsoever, the petition is allowed and the said order is set aside, with the trial Court directed to pass a reasoned order on the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 23, Rule 1 CPC, with the said order to be now passed within a period of two months from today, the matter having remained pending unnecessarily.
