Back
2024 Supreme(All) 2139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Smt. Munni Devi - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shashikala Pandey - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15798 of 2024
Decided on : 17-12-2024
For the Appellant : Prakhar Tandon
For the Respondent: Shiv Kumar Yadav
A revisional Court must apply its judicial mind and provide a reasoned decision, engaging with the arguments presented by both parties.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Revision petition - The petitioner challenged the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court and the subsequent dismissal of his revision petition, arguing lack of proper adjudication by the revisional Court - The Court found that the revisional judge failed to apply due judicial mind, merely referencing arguments without adequate analysis - The Court emphasized that a judge must meticulously consider all aspects and arguments to arrive at a sound conclusion - The judgment and order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Judicial Standards - A judge must engage with the arguments presented and provide a reasoned decision, reflecting a sound judicial approach. (Paras 5-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition against the judgment of the Small Cause Court, which was dismissed without proper consideration of the arguments presented.
Findings of Court:
The revisional Court's judgment was set aside due to lack of proper adjudication, and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the revisional Court adequately applied its mind to the arguments presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that a mere reference to arguments is insufficient; a judge must engage with the issues and provide a reasoned decision.
Result: The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Heard Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Utpal Chatterjee and Sri Shiv Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Cause dated 29.2.2024 in SCC Suit No. 190 of 2013 as well as the order dated 7.11.2024 dismissing his revision-petition.
3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner for assailing the order passed in revision is that the revisional Court did not apply its mind at all to the argument advanced by respective parties before it and after recording their argument simply concluded in paragraph 11 of the judgment that he did not find any error or illegality in the order assailed and hence the revision-petition was liable to be dismissed.
4. Upon a pointed query made to learned counsel appearing for the landlord-respondent, as to how he could be defending the order passed in revision-petition, Sri Utpal Chatterjee, one of the learned Advocates for the respondent very fairly concedes that the recital as contained in paragraph 11 of the judgment cannot be said to be an adjudication as a result of application of mind by the presiding judge and therefore, requested that this order may be set aside and matter may be remitted to the Court below for a decision afresh on merits.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes, namely, Dr. Amit Verma, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar, I find that the concerned judge has not rendered at all due application of his mind which was very much required by a judge adjudicating a lis. A mere reference to the arguments of the respective parties does not suffice the need required, for proper adjudication of a lis.
6. The manner and method in which the revision has been dealt with cannot be approved of by this Court. Paragraph No. 11 of the judgment is reproduced as under :
7. No prudent man would be arriving at such above conclusion just after referring the arguments of the respective parties and certain authority that were cited with by the respective parties.
8. Every judge who has to adjudicate the points on the issue raised in the matter, is not only required to refer to the arguments advanced on behalf of respective parties but also to deal with the same to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the judgment assailed is suffering from any error of law or facts or there is some gross error in assessment and analysis of the evidence by the Court whose order has been challenged.
9. It is well-settled principle that revision has facets of an appeal and therefore, when the revision petition is preferred for there is no appeal available under the relevant statue, it is a duty cast upon the judge to look into all aspects of the matter from both the points of view of the revision applicant as well as respondents in whose favour the decree has been passed. From a judge in the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge it is expected that he would not only apply his judicial mind to issues raised but also be dealing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties very meticulously to arrive at findings which would be reflecting a sound judicial approach of a varied and wide experience of such a judicial officer.
10. In view of the above, the judgment and order dated 7.11.2024 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court of revision to be decided afresh within a maximum period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
11. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, is directed to assign this revision petition again to the same Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar, if still posted in his judgeship. In the meanwhile and until decision afresh is taken in revision petition, the
