Surendran v. Vijaya Mohan

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 26TH PHALGUNA, ``` ## **`1943`** ## **`OP(C) NO. 2243 OF 2021`** ## **`IA 1/2021 IN OS 235/2009 OF SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SURENDRAN AGED 54 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, ASWANTH BHAVAN, PARASUVAIKKAL VILLAGE, PARASUVAIKKAL P.O., PARASSAL, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 122 BY ADVS. V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) V.JAYA RAGI R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL) NEERAJ NARAYAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` VIJAYA MOHAN S/O.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, KESAVA MANDIRAM, KATTAKKADA ROAD, BALARAMAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 121 BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP(C) NO. 2243 OF 2021 ``` ..2.. , ## **JUDGMENT** This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the ## Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1. Call for the records from Sub Court, Neyyattinkara leading to Ext.P11 order, meticulously scrutinize the same, and to set aside or quash Ext.P11 order by dismissing Ext.P10 application. 2. Pass an order setting aside or quashing Ext.P11 order and directing the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara to dispose of Ext.P10 application afresh in accordance with law. 3. Pass such other orders, interlocutory or otherwise, which are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice; 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.235/2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Neyyattinkara. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. 3. O.S.No.235/2009 was instituted to declare the correction deed No.189/2009 of Balaramapuram Sub Registry executed to correct sale deed No.1917/2006 as **==> picture [218 x 33] intentionally omitted <==** null and void and for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner instituted O.S.No.100/2010 based on deed No.189/2009 referred to above. The wife of the respondent instituted O.S.No.287/2011 against the petitioner and others to annul a document executed in respect of another property. The petitioner filed O.S.No.835/2006 in respect of the property covered by the document impugned in O.S.No.287/2011. Respondent filed I.A.No.1/2021 seeking joint trial of all the four suits. 4. The petitioner failed to file counter affidavit to the above interlocutory application. However, the petitioner resisted the application contending that causes of action in respect of the suits are different and therefore, joint trial of the cases would cause prejudice to the petitioner. 5. The courts below passed Ext.P11 order in I.A.No.1/2021, which reads thus:- “Not yet filed objection. Hence the I.A. is allowed”. **==> picture [218 x 33] intentionally omitted <==** The above order is under challenge in this Original Petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the parties and causes of action in the original suits are different. The court below passed Ext.P11 order in a haste and without assigning reasons thereof. It is submitted that the impugned order is vitiated. 7. The Court below has not assigned any reason to allow the application. Providing reasons in orders is an essential attribute of judicial proceedings. The reason is the very life of the law. Every litigant who approaches the court with a prayer is entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such prayer. Reasons are also essential for either of the parties to the lis to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into a final decision which may be subject to examination of the higher courts. 8. While highlighting the principle that, to give ``` OP(C) NO. 2243 OF 2021 ``` **==> picture [20 x 21] intentionally omitted <==** reasons is the rule of natural justice, the Apex Court in **the Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others [AIR 2010 SC 1285]** held that, not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice-delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the **==> picture [218 x 33] intentionally omitted <==** manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. The Apex Court further held that absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It was further held that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as to why his application has been rejected. 9. In **Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh [(1987) 2 SCC 222]** the Apex Court held that recording of proper reasons would be essential, so that the appellate court would have advantage of considering the considered opinion of the High Court on the reasons which had weighed with the trial court. 10. In **State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568]** the Apex Court held that reasons in **==> picture [218 x 33] intentionally omitted <==** support of the decision is cardinal principle and right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. 19. In **State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain [(2008) 15 SCC 711]** the Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 11. In **Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers (2010 KHC 4260),** the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. 12. The court below lost sight of the abovementioned salutary requirements while disposing of the interlocutory application. Hence, Ext.P11 order is liable ``` OP(C) NO. 2243 OF 2021 ``` **==> picture [20 x 21] intentionally omitted <==** to be set aside. In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The court below shall consider I.A.No.1/2021 in O.S.No.235/2009 afresh, after granting the petitioner an opportunity to file counter and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before the Court closes for summer vacation. **Sd/K. BABU, JUDGE** kkj ``` OP(C) NO. 2243 OF 2021 ``` ..9.. , ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2243/2021`** ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` - `Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.235/2009 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA` - `Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN OS NO.235/2009 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.100/2010 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA` - `Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN OS NO.100/2010 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA` - `Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF PLAINTIFF IN OS NO.287/2011 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA` - `Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 THE TRUE COPY OF PLAINTIFF IN OS NO.287/2011 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA` - `Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF PLAINTIFF IN OS NO.8354/2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA` - `Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS THE TRUE COPY OF PLAINTIFF IN OS NO.835/2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA` - `Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT NEYYATTINKARA IN O.S.835 OF 2016 DATED 23.1.2021 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN O.P.(T.P.) NO.54/2020` - `Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF IA NO.1/2020 IN OS NO.235/2009 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA` - `Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.1/2021` ``` OP(C) NO. 2243 OF 2021 ``` **==> picture [26 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** , ``` IN OS NO.235/2009 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ```