NON­REPORTABLE

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)

VERSUS

Sheopati Devi (D) & Ors.             ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final

judgment and order dated 27.07.2012 in CMWP No.

1

3231 of 2002 and order dated 16.01.2013 in CMRA

No.247546  of 2013  passed  by the  High  Court of

Judicature at Allahabad.  

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of these appeals which involve a short

point.

4. 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

2

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.

5. 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.”

6. The short question, which arises for

consideration in these appeals, is whether the

3

aforementioned impugned order is legally

sustainable or not.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. This Court has consistently laid down that

every judicial or/and quasi­judicial order passed by

the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which

4

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).   

5

10. 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

the reason.

11. We are, therefore, of the view that such order

is not legally sustainable and hence deserves to be

set aside.

12. 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.      

13. 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

6

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.

                                    .………...................................J.                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                       

    …...……..................................J.              [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; April 08, 2019

7