An impleadment application cannot be allowed by a non-speaking order without hearing the parties.

The petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 274 of 2021.

While the suit was pending, respondents 2–5 applied to be impleaded as defendants.

The Trial Court allowed I.A. No. 3 on 9 February 2023.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that he had not been given an opportunity to object and that the order lacked application of mind.

Respondents 2–5 submitted that sufficient time to file objections had been provided, but none were filed.

The High Court noted that the matter had been adjourned for objections before the Trial Court passed its order.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order allowing I.A. No. 3 was liable to be set aside because it did not disclose that the parties had been heard and gave no reasons.

2. Whether I.A. No. 3 should be restored for the petitioner to file objections and for the Trial Court to decide the application afresh.

The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as invoked in the petition.

It applied the procedural principle that a judicial order deciding an application must disclose consideration of the matter and provide reasons; an order that is non-speaking and reflects no application of mind is liable to be set aside.

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.

The Trial Court’s order did not indicate that the parties had been heard and contained no reasons for allowing the impleadment application.

The High Court therefore found it to be a non-speaking order passed without application of mind, warranting supervisory intervention.

It restored I.A. No. 3 so the petitioner could file objections and the Trial Court could determine the application after hearing the parties and giving reasons.

I.A. No. 3 was restored to the Trial Court’s file; the petitioner was given liberty to file objections by the next hearing date, after which the Trial Court was directed to hear the parties and pass an appropriate, detailed order in accordance with law.