AJAY ROONGTA Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD MAHIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The learned trial Court, an Officer of the rank of Additional District Judge, has dealt with the application of the defendant petitioner filed under Order 13, Rule 5 CPS (sic CPC) in most cursory and causal manner. It has not recorded any reason good or bad to decide this application. One line order has been passed. It has not recorded and give any reason not be frame other issues as proposed by the defendant petitioner in the application. It is a perverse order and it cannot be allowed to stand. Such an application filed by any litigant is to be decided by giving the reasons and not by passing cryptic and non speaking order. The reasons may not be elaborate as what the judgment in the suit, but howsoever briefly, the reasons are to be recorded in support of the order. Otherwise, there will remain no distinction or difference in between administrative officer and judicial officers.

(3.) As a result of the aforesaid discussions, this revision petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 10.4.2000 to the extent it decide the application of the defendant petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC is quashed and set aside.