KUSHUMA DEVI vs. SHEOPATI DEVI( DEAD)

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL  APPEAL Nos.3448­3449  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.7837­7838 of 2014) Kushuma Devi ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Sheopati Devi (D) & Ors.             ….Respondent(s)                   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These   appeals   are   filed   against   the   final Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.04.08 17:01:21 IST Reason: judgment and order dated 27.07.2012 in CMWP No. 1 3231 of 2002 and order dated 16.01.2013 in CMRA No.247546  of   2013   passed  by  the   High  Court of Judicature at Allahabad.  3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal   of   these   appeals   which   involve   a   short point. 4. The appellant filed an eviction petition against the respondents being Misc. Case No. 18/1990. By order dated 19.04.1996, the Civil Judge decreed the suit and passed the decree for eviction against the respondents.   The   respondents   felt   aggrieved   and filed Rent Appeal No. 4/1996 in the Court of A.D.J., Court No.8, Fatehpur.  The first Appellate Court by order   dated   04.12.2001   allowed   the   appeal   and dismissed   the   eviction   petition   filed   by   the appellant. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed a writ  petition   in  the   High  Court  at  Allahabad.   By impugned order dated 27.07.2012, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order 2 dated 04.12.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Fatehpur in the absence of the appellant.     The   appellant   filed   an   application   for recall   of   the   order   dated   27.07.2012.     The   High Court by order dated 16.01.2013 dismissed the said application.  The appellant felt aggrieved by the said orders and has filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court. 5. The impugned order reads as under : “Having gone through the impugned order, I do   not   find   any   patent   illegality   or irregularity  therein   warranting  interference. Findings   of   fact   have   been   recorded   which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record.  I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere.  The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Civil   Misc.   Writ Petition   No.27433  of   1991 (Lala Ram Narain vs. Xth Additional District Judge,   Moradabad   &   Ors.)   decided   on 13.07.2012.     There   is   nothing   which   may justify judicial review of order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.” 6. The   short   question,   which   arises   for consideration   in   these   appeals,   is   whether   the 3 aforementioned   impugned   order   is   legally sustainable or not. 7. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the High Court   for   deciding   the   appellant’s   writ   petition afresh on merits in accordance with law. 8. The need to remand the case to the High Court has   occasioned   because   from   the   perusal   of   the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 quoted above, we find that it is an unreasoned order.  In other words, the High Court neither discussed the issues arising the   case,   nor   dealt   with   any   of   the   submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has dismissed the writ petition. 9. This   Court   has   consistently   laid   down   that every judicial or/and quasi­judicial order passed by the   Court/Tribunal/Authority   concerned,   which 4 decides   the   lis   between   the   parties,   must   be supported   with   the   reasons   in   support   of   its conclusion.   The parties to the   lis   and so also the appellate/revisionary   Court   while   examining   the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order.  In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it   is   not   possible   to   know   as   to   what   led   the Court/Tribunal/Authority   for   reaching   to   such conclusion. (See ­  State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan,  (1981) 4 SCC 129,  Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh & Ors.,  (1987) 2 SCC 222,   State of U.P. vs. Battan & Ors.,   (2001) 10 SCC 607,   Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & , (2003) 11 SCC 519 and   Ors. State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar , (2004) 5 SCC 568).   5 10. The orders impugned in these appeals suffer from the aforesaid error, because, as would be clear from the perusal of the order, the High Court while passing the impugned order simply dismissed the writ   petition   without   any   discussion,   finding   and the reason. 11. We are, therefore, of the view that such order is not legally sustainable and hence deserves to be set aside. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside.  The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, out of   which   these   appeals   arise,   for   its   disposal   in accordance   with   law   keeping   in   view   the observations made above.      13. Since we have formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for its fresh disposal on merits, we have not expressed any opinion on the 6 merits of the case while deciding these appeals.  The High Court will, therefore, decide the writ petition uninfluenced   by   any   observations   made   by   this Court   in   this   order   as   expeditiously   as   possible preferably within six months.                                      .………...................................J.                                     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                            …...……..................................J.              [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; April 08, 2019 7