IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.34483449 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.78377838 of 2014)
Kushuma Devi ….Appellant(s)
Sheopati Devi (D) & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
- Leave granted.
- These appeals are filed against the final
judgment and order dated 27.07.2012 in CMWP No.
3231 of 2002 and order dated 16.01.2013 in CMRA
No.247546 of 2013 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad.
- A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of these appeals which involve a short
- The appellant filed an eviction petition against
the respondents being Misc. Case No. 18/1990. By
order dated 19.04.1996, the Civil Judge decreed the
suit and passed the decree for eviction against the
respondents. The respondents felt aggrieved and
filed Rent Appeal No. 4/1996 in the Court of A.D.J.,
Court No.8, Fatehpur. The first Appellate Court by
order dated 04.12.2001 allowed the appeal and
dismissed the eviction petition filed by the
appellant. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed a
writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad. By
impugned order dated 27.07.2012, the High Court
dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order
dated 04.12.2001 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Court No.8, Fatehpur in the absence of the
appellant. The appellant filed an application for
recall of the order dated 27.07.2012. The High
Court by order dated 16.01.2013 dismissed the said
application. The appellant felt aggrieved by the said
orders and has filed these appeals by way of special
leave in this Court.
- The impugned order reads as under :
“Having gone through the impugned order, I
do not find any patent illegality or
irregularity therein warranting interference.
Findings of fact have been recorded which
have not been shown perverse or contrary to
material on record. I, therefore, do not find
any reason to interfere. The scope of judicial
review under Article 227 is very limited and
narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.27433 of 1991
(Lala Ram Narain vs. Xth Additional District
Judge, Moradabad & Ors.) decided on
13.07.2012. There is nothing which may
justify judicial review of order impugned in
this writ petition in the light of exposition of
law, as discussed in the above judgment.”
- The short question, which arises for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the
aforementioned impugned order is legally
sustainable or not.
- Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are constrained to allow these appeals, set aside the
impugned orders and remand the case to the High
Court for deciding the appellant’s writ petition
afresh on merits in accordance with law.
- The need to remand the case to the High Court
has occasioned because from the perusal of the
impugned order dated 27.07.2012 quoted above, we
find that it is an unreasoned order. In other words,
the High Court neither discussed the issues arising
the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions
urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as
to why it has dismissed the writ petition.
- This Court has consistently laid down that
every judicial or/and quasijudicial order passed by
the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which
decides the lis between the parties, must be
supported with the reasons in support of its
conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the
appellate/revisionary Court while examining the
correctness of the order are entitled to know as to
on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at
in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the
reasons and the findings on the submissions urged,
it is not possible to know as to what led the
Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such
conclusion. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal
Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129, Jawahar
Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC
222, State of U.P. vs. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10
SCC 607, Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar &
Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa vs.
Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568).
- The orders impugned in these appeals suffer
from the aforesaid error, because, as would be clear
from the perusal of the order, the High Court while
passing the impugned order simply dismissed the
writ petition without any discussion, finding and
- We are, therefore, of the view that such order
is not legally sustainable and hence deserves to be
- In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned
orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the
High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, out
of which these appeals arise, for its disposal in
accordance with law keeping in view the
observations made above.
- Since we have formed an opinion to remand
the case to the High Court for its fresh disposal on
merits, we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case while deciding these appeals. The
High Court will, therefore, decide the writ petition
uninfluenced by any observations made by this
Court in this order as expeditiously as possible
preferably within six months.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] ……………………………………….J.
April 08, 2019