CHANAMMA W/O. SRI MARAPPA AND SMT. KALYANAMMA W/O. LATE MADDAPPA Vs. SMT. V. LALITHA VASUDEV W/O. H.K. VASUDEV AND SRI. R. NAGARAJA S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st Respondent has instituted execution proceedings to execute the decree passed in O.S. 7590/01. An application was filed on 11.2.05 to attach the property stating that it belongs to the 2nd Respondent - JDR. An order was passed to issue attachment warrant to attach the immovable property of the 2nd Respondent - JDR. Office of the Court put up a note that, on verification of the EC, the name of the owner is not mentioned and the decree holder may be directed to furnish EC in form No. 15. The matter was posted before the Court on 1.4.05. The Court permitted the decree holder to furnish the encumbrance certificate in form No. 15. On furnishing of an encumbrance certificate along with a memo, the Court has passed on order on 12.4.05 directing the office to verify and report. Upon examination, the office has put up a note that the owner's name is not mentioned and hence the decree holder may be directed to furnish the assessment extract. Again on 25.05.05, the office put up a note that on verification of the EC in form No. 15, since name is not forthcoming, the decree holder may be directed to furnish assessment register extract. Two encumbrance certificates were filed, acting on which, the Trial Court has passed the order of attachment. The Petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed on 25.5.05, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure and also an application to stay the sale. The execution Court passed an order on 7.12.06, directing that the sale of the attached property be postponed till further orders. I.A.11 was filed to recall the order dated 12.8.05 to which objection was fifed by the decree holder. Upon consideration, the Court below has passed the order dated 13.10.09, the validity of which has been questioned in this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel. I have perused the writ papers.

(3.) IN my opinion, the Trial Court has not considered the case of the parties in the correct perspective. There is no appreciation of the contentions of both the parties in the correct perspective. The impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be termed as a reasoned order. In a decision reported at AIR 2007 KAR 9 (Punjab National Bank and Anr. v. Anwar Sheriff), a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: The desirability of a speaking order while dealing with the interim prayer sought for by a party cannot be lightly ignored, more so when both the parties have been heard and they have raised several contentions and as also when the same is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out.