BAIJNATH SINGH Vs. DEVENDRA KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at in a judgment or order by the Courts in our judicial system has been recognized since the very inception of the system. Right to know the reasons for the decisions made by the Judges is an indispensible right of a litigant. Even a brief recording a reasoned opinion justifying the decision made would suffice to withstand the test of a reasoned order or a judgment. A non-speaking, unreasoned or cryptic order passed or judgment delivered without taking into account the relevant facts, evidence available and the law attracted thereto has always been looked at negatively and judicially de recognized by the courts. Mere use of the words or the language of a provision in an order or judgment without any mention of the relevant facts and the evidence available thereon has always been treated by the Superior Courts as an order incapable of withstanding the test of an order passed judicially. Ours is a judicial system inherited from the British legacy wherein objectivity in judgments and orders over the subjectivity has always been given precedence. It has been judicially recognized perception in our system that the subjectivity preferred by the Judge in place of objectivity in a judgment or order destroys the quality of the judgment or order and an unreasoned order does not subserve the doctrine of fair play as has been declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Andhara Bank vs. Official Liquidator, 2005 (3) SCJ 762. For a qualitative decision arrived at judicially by the court, it is immaterial in how many pages a judgment or order has been written by the Judge as has been declared by the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. ESSEL Mining and Industries Limited (2005) 6 SCC 675.

(2.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 for quashing the order dtd. 27/3/2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division - I), Dumka whereby and whereunder, the application of Plaintiffs/Petitioners filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected.

(3.) The Title Suit No. 42 of 2015 was instituted by Plaintiffs/Petitioners on 16/10/2015 stating inter alia that Plaintiffs/Petitioners are heirs of Jhakhori Singh Pradhan with regard to the non-transferable land under Gantzer settlement Jamabandi No. 10, Mouza - Farasimal No. 46 total area 19 acres, 7 decimals as described in Schedule- A to the plaint is within the possession of the Plaintiffs/Petitioners. Plaintiffs/Petitioners have instituted suit claiming the reliefs for a decree to declare exclusive owner having right, title and interest over the suit Schedule 'A' property along with defendant no. 2. Further declaration that defendant first party have got no right over the suit land and also for confirmation of their possession of the Plaintiffs/Petitioners over the suit property and in case they are found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, the delivery of possession through process of the court. Further relief is that entry of the suit land in favour of the defendants in the present survey parcha, Jamabandi No. 31 of aforesaid mouza be declared illegal and void along with the cost of suit.