RANGASAMI GOUNDER Vs. MUTHU GOUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of the order passed by learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in I.A. No. 799 of 1990. I.A. No. 799 of 1990 is an application for condoning the delay in filing an application to set aside the order of abatement of the suit, so far as the first defendant is concerned. The respondent has filed a counter stating as to why the application is not sustainable. The learned District Munsif has passed an order stating that the reason given by the petitioner is to be accepted and therefore the petition is to be allowed. The impugned order does not say what is the application in I.A. No. 799 of 1990, who has filed it, what is the objection raised by the other side and why the trial Court has come to the conclusion that it has to be allowed etc. In other words, the impugned order is a non-speaking order from which nothing can be inferred. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that I.A. No. 799 of 1990 is an application for condoning the delay of 2,931 days in filing an application for setting aside the abatement and this application has been allowed by the trial Court without considering the rival contentions of both parties and without considering the fact that the petitioner has not given any reason for the inordinate delay and has passed the order in a slip-shod manner and it has to be set aside.

(2.) IT has been repeatedly held by our Court as well as the Supreme Court that no judicial order can be justified, unless it is a speaking order. In the impugned order, it is not stated what was the reason for the delay in filing an application and why the respondent is objecting to condone the delay etc. A judicial order must advert to the facts and issues and give a specific finding before the operative portion of the order is passed. But in the impugned order, these particulars are not provided. Therefore, for that reason itself, it has to be set aside and remitted to the trial Court.