Judicial Failure to Consider Citations and Provide Cogent Reasons Vitiates Orals Orders and Warrants Remand

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit (O.S. No. 676/2006) for specific performance of a registered sale agreement involving a consideration of ₹12,75,000/-

Although the defendants appeared, they failed to file a written statement, leading to an ex-parte judgment and decree on 17.12.2008

In the execution proceedings (Ex. P. No. 98/2009), the court allowed the petition on 23.08.2012, and a sale deed was registered on 23.09.2012

Subsequently, the respondents filed Misc. P. No. 3/2013 under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC to set aside the decree, citing negligence by their advocate

The Trial Court allowed the miscellaneous petition on 18.03.2026

The petitioner challenged this order, contending that the Trial Court recorded the existence of the petitioner’s citations and synopsis in the docket but failed to discuss or consider them in the final impugned order

1. Whether the Trial Court’s failure to consider the citations and written arguments submitted by a party while passing an order in a miscellaneous petition vitiates the judicial process

2. Whether the impugned order satisfies the legal requirement of being a "reasoned order"

The court applied the fundamental principle of the "Fair Judicial Process," which dictates that reasoning is the "heartbeat" of every judicial order

The court emphasized the duty of courts to consider the contentions and precedents cited by both parties.

The court referred to the discretionary powers under Order IX of the CPC regarding setting aside ex-parte decrees, noting that such discretion must be exercised reasonably and transparently

Precedents cited by the respondents included A. Murugesan v. Jamuna Rani, G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, and Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora, which deal with "sufficient cause" for non-appearance

The High Court observed that while the Trial Court acknowledged the petitioner’s submission of citations and synopsis in its docket orders dated 12.11.2025, the final impugned order only reflected the judgments relied upon by the respondents

The High Court held that a court is duty-bound to disclose its mental process and demonstrate that it has given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both sides

It reasoned that failure to address the petitioner’s specific contentions—including the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the suspension of the respondents' advocate—rendered the order arbitrary

The Court emphasized that even interim or miscellaneous orders must be grounded in legal principles and evidence rather than subjective opinion to safeguard against arbitrariness

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed in Misc. No. 3/2013 and remanded the matter back to the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara with a direction to pass a fresh, reasoned order within four weeks