High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Gurudwara Bei Sehjal Babehar Vs. Gurparkash and Ors.

MANU/HP/0863/2018

11.07.2018

Civil

Judicial orders are required to be both speaking as well as reasoned orders

By way of present petition, challenge has been laid to the order dated 16th January, 2018 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, vide which an application filed before it purportedly on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for extending the time to file written statement has been allowed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that, the impugned order is per se not sustainable in the eyes of law, because while passing the said order, learned trial Court erred in not appreciating that, neither the application filed before it, was a proper application, as the same was neither signed by any of the applicants, nor was it supported by an affidavit, nor the contents therein revealed that there was any cogent explanation in the application as to why the written statement could not have been filed by the applicants within time, as is envisaged in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

It is not in dispute that, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who were Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 before the learned Trial Court were duly served on 16th September, 2017. It is also a matter of record that since then several opportunities were given to the Defendants to file their written statement, however, no written statement was filed. It is also a matter of record that, on 16th January, 2018 an application was filed for extension of time under Section 148 read with Section 151 of CPC through learned counsel by one applicant namely, Guruprakash. Incidentally, this application apparently has neither been signed by the Applicant though it contains the signature of the learned counsel who moved the application nor the same is supported by an affidavit.

The order impugned before this Court vide which the application filed in the name of Applicant Guruprakash for extension of time for filing written statement was allowed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Petitioner is correct in his submission that, this order was passed without affording any opportunity of filing reply to the Plaintiffs, which is evident from the fact that the application dated 16th January, 2018 was disposed of on the same day and the order does not mention that opportunity of reply was given to the non applicants, but they chose not to file any reply. The contention that, the order is non-speaking and cryptic is also borne out from the impugned order as neither there is any mention in the impugned order of the facts of the application nor any reasoning whatsoever has been assigned therein as to what weighed with the learned trial court while allowing the application.

Time and again, Hon'ble Supreme Court as also Hon'ble High Courts have been reiterating that judicial orders are required to be both speaking as also reasoned orders. The rationale behind this is that content of the order itself should be self explanatory as to why the conclusion arrived at in the order has been arrived. Besides this, a non speaking order perhaps also is an indicator of non application of mind by the Court concerned while passing the impugned order. Impugned order is quashed and set aside with further direction to the learned Court below to decide the application filed by the applicant Guruprakash after affording opportunity to file reply to the application by the non applicants. Petition disposed off.

Tags : Time Extension Non-speaking order

Share :