Orders Bereft Of Reasoning Liable To Be Set Aside In Revisional Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders which are bereft of reasoning cannot be termed as good orders and the same are liable to be set aside in the revisional jurisdiction.Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by one Phulgita Devi challenging the order passed by the Trial Court whereby her application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of...
The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders which are bereft of reasoning cannot be termed as good orders and the same are liable to be set aside in the revisional jurisdiction.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by one Phulgita Devi challenging the order passed by the Trial Court whereby her application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.
Order VII Rule 11 sets out various cases whereby a plaint can be rejected.
In the application, the petitioner had claimed that the suit has was filed after allowing of eviction petition filed by her and dismissal of a revision petition as well as SLP by Supreme Court filed by the plaintiff.
It was also alleged that the plaintiff to the suit had not valued the suit property for the purposes of court fees as the value of the suit property was enhanced, thereby praying for rejection of plaint.
The Trial Court, vide impugned order, did not agree with petitioner's contention that there was no cause of action against her or that the plaintiff had filed the suit without any cause of action.
In appeal, the High Court observed that the reasoning in a judicial order is the lifeline of any judicial order and that the Judge while passing an order has to not only record the case of the parties but also must give reasons for reaching to a conclusion.
"Orders which are bereft of reasoning cannot be termed as good order and are liable to be set aside in the revisional jurisdiction. In the present case, the learned Judge while passing the order assailed herein has not given any reasoning at all for reaching to the conclusion and therefore it cannot sustain in the eyes of law," it added.
Accordingly, while allowing the plea, the Court remanded the matter back to Trial Court for disposal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in accordance with law.
Case Title: PHULGITA DEVI v. KRISHAN KMAR & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 879