Sheo Prasad Vs. Pawan Kumar
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3027 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7096 of 1999)
Petitioner: Sheo Prasad
Respondent: Pawan Kumar
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3027 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7096 of 1999)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 28, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 115 – Revision – Dismissal – Reasons required to be recorded separately but not recorded – Plea that time was sought and Counsel agreed. Held that it was no ground to not give reasons. Orders set aside and matter remitted back for redecision.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
3. A very peculiar order has been passed by the High Court in the revision petition. We are told by learned Counsel for the Appellant that though the revision was dismissed and reasons were required to be recorded separately, no reasons were recorded. Of course, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that reasons were not required to be recorded because Counsel for the Appellant had prayed for one year’s time to vacate the premises and hand over possession and learned Counsel for the Respondent did not object. In our view, this cannot be a consent order as submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondent as recording of reasons was expressly mentioned in the order passed by the High Court. Because revision petition was dismissed, time might have been prayed for vacating the premises and that may have been granted with consent. But that has nothing to do with the record-ing of reasons separately. Only on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Revision Application No. 338 of 1998 is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to redecide the same and dispose it of after hearing the parties by a reasoned order at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order at its end. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
3. A very peculiar order has been passed by the High Court in the revision petition. We are told by learned Counsel for the Appellant that though the revision was dismissed and reasons were required to be recorded separately, no reasons were recorded. Of course, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that reasons were not required to be recorded because Counsel for the Appellant had prayed for one year’s time to vacate the premises and hand over possession and learned Counsel for the Respondent did not object. In our view, this cannot be a consent order as submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondent as recording of reasons was expressly mentioned in the order passed by the High Court. Because revision petition was dismissed, time might have been prayed for vacating the premises and that may have been granted with consent. But that has nothing to do with the record-ing of reasons separately. Only on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Revision Application No. 338 of 1998 is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to redecide the same and dispose it of after hearing the parties by a reasoned order at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order at its end. No costs.
