G. SARASWATHI & ANR.versusRATHINAMMAL & ORS.

548                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    2 S.C.R. 548                [2018] 2 S.C.R.


A                          G. SARASWATHI & ANR.
                                         v.
                           RATHINAMMAL & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 2112 of 2018)
B                              FEBRUARY 15, 2018
          [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
            Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, r.31 – Appellants
      filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance of
      agreement – Trial Court decreed the suit – Single Judge, High Court
C
      set aside the judgment/decree of the trial Court – Aggrieved,
      appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench,
      which dismissed the appeal – Propriety of – Held: Not proper –
      Case remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding
      the LPA afresh on merits in accordance with law – The reason is
D     that the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the
      appellants(plaintiffs) cursorily without dealing with any of the issues
      arising in the case as also the arguments urged by the parties in
      support of their case – In the absence of any application of judicial
      mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal
      and further without even mentioning the factual narration of the
E
      case set up by the parties, the findings of the two Courts as to how
      they dealt with the issues arising in the case in their respective
      jurisdiction and without there being any discussion, appreciation,
      reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the
      findings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld or reversed,
F     while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legal
      principles applicable to the case, it is difficult to sustain such order
      of the Division Bench – Disposal of LPA by the Division Bench of
      the High Court not in conformity with the requirements of Or. XLI,
      r.31 CPC.
G           Judgments/Orders – Reasoned order – Emphasis on Courts
      to pass reasoned order in every case.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. The need to remand the case to the High Court
      has occasioned for the reason that the Division Bench dismissed
H
                                        548
     G. SARASWATHI & ANR. v. RATHINAMMAL & ORS.                           549


the appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) cursorily without         A
dealing with any of the issues arising in the case as also the
arguments urged by the parties in support of their case. [Para
12] [551-F]
      2. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind
to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and           B
further without even mentioning the factual narration of the case
set up by the parties, the findings of the two Courts as to how
they dealt with the issues arising in the case in their respective
jurisdiction and without there being any discussion, appreciation,
reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the
findings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld or reversed,            C
while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of
legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court
to sustain such order of the Division Bench. The disposal of the
LPA by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to
be in conformity with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of             D
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [Para 13] [551-G-H; 552-A]
       3. Time and again, Supreme Court has emphasized on the
Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must
contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to
the lis, the issues arising the case, the submissions urged by the        E
parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and
the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues in support
of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench
failed to keep in mind this principle while disposing of the appeal
and passed a cryptic and unreasoned order. Such order
undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived           F
them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other
has lost. [Para 14] [552-B-D]
      4. The case remanded to the Division Bench of the High
Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with
law. [Para 15] [552-D-E]                                                  G
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2112
of 2018
      From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2004 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in L. P. A. No. 32 of 2000.
                                                                          H
550             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 2 S.C.R.


A            P. V. Yogeswaran, Ashish Kr. Upadhyay, Bhuvan Jayant, Advs.
      for the Appellants.
            Ms. Jyoti Parasher, N. J. Ramchander, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,
      Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
            ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
             2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated
      21.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in L.P.A.
      No.32 of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
C     the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1998 passed
      by the Single Judge of the High Court in A.S. No.630 of 1984.
             3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would be
      clear from the facts stated hereinbelow.
            4. The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondents are
D     the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
             5. The appellants filed a civil suit against the respondents for
      specific performance of the agreement. The respondents filed their written
      statement and denied the material averments of the appellants’ claim set
      up in the plaint. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed the
E     issues. Parties adduced their evidence. By Judgment/decree dated
      03.07.1984, the Trial Court decreed the appellants’ suit.
             6. The respondents felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the
      Single Bench of the High Court. By judgment/decree dated 30.10.1998,
      the Single Judge allowed the respondents’ appeal and while setting aside
F     of the judgment/decree of the Trial Court dismissed the appellants’ suit.
            7. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed Letters Patent Appeal
      before the Division Bench. By impugned order, the Division Bench
      dismissed the appeal giving rise to filing of this appeal before this Court
      by way of special leave.
G            8. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,
      is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing
      the appellants’ Letters Patent Appeal.
           9. Heard Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, learned counsel for the appellants
      and Ms. Jyoti Parasher, learned counsel for the respondents.
H
      G. SARASWATHI & ANR. v. RATHINAMMAL & ORS.                                     551
              [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal           A
of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set
aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Bench of
the High Court for deciding the LPA afresh on merits in accordance
with law.
       11. The impugned order reads as under:                                        B
        “This L.P.A. coming on for hearing on Thursday the fifteen
        day April, 2004 upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the
        order of the Honourable Mr. Justice P. Thangavel dated
        30.10.98 and made in the exercise of the Special Appellate
        Jurisdiction of the High Court in A.S. No. 630 of 1984 and                   C
        all other papers material to this case, and upon hearing
        the arguments of Mr. T.M. Hariharan, Advocate for the
        Appellants and Mr. K. Rakhunathan, Advocate for Ist
        respondent and steps not having been taken up to serve
        the notice to the Respondents 3 to 5 and having stood
        over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order                  D
        and decree as follows:
        (i) That the judgment and Decree dated 30.10.98 and made
        in the exercise of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
        High Court in A.S. No.630/1984 be and hereby are
        confirmed; and the letters patent appeal is dismissed; and                   E

        (ii) That there be no costs in this L.P.A.”
       12. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned
for the reason that the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellants (plaintiffs) cursorily without dealing with any of the issues             F
arising in the case as also the arguments urged by the parties in support
of their case.
       13. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to
the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and further without
even mentioning the factual narration of the case set up by the parties,
                                                                                     G
the findings of the two Courts as to how they dealt with the issues arising
in the case in their respective jurisdiction and without there being any
discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issues
and why the findings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld or
reversed, while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of
legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court to sustain   H
552                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 2 S.C.R.


A     such order of the Division Bench. In our opinion, the disposal of the
      LPA by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to be in
      conformity with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of
      Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).
              14. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the
B     need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the
      narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues
      arising the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles
      applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings
      on all the issues in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that
      the Division Bench failed to keep in mind this principle while disposing
C     of the appeal and passed a cryptic and unreasoned order. Such order
      undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them to
      know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. We
      can never countenance the manner in which such order was passed by
      the High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the
D     High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits.
             15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal,
      set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Bench
      of the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance
      with law keeping in view our observations made supra.
E            16. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained from making
      any observation on merits of the controversy having formed an opinion
      to remand the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned above.
      The High Court would, therefore, decide the appeal, uninfluenced by
      any of our observations, strictly in accordance with law. Since the appeal
F     is quite old, we request the High Court to ensure expeditious disposal of
      the appeal.
             17. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside
      with the aforesaid directions.

G
      Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeal allowed.




H