REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2112 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.25814 of 2004]

G. Saraswathi & Anr. .. Appellants

Versus

Rathinammal & Ors. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and

order dated 21.04.2004 passed by the High Court of

Judicature  at  Madras  in  L.P.A.  No.32  of  2000

whereby  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and

1

decree dated 30.10.1998 passed by the Single Judge

of the High Court in A.S. No.630 of 1984.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass

and  it  would  be  clear  from  the  facts  stated

hereinbelow.

4. The  appellants  are  the  plaintiffs  whereas  the

respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of

which this appeal arises.

5. The  appellants  filed  a  civil  suit  against  the

respondents  for  specific  performance  of  the

agreement.  The  respondents  filed  their  written

statement and denied the material averments of the

appellants’ claim set up in the plaint. The Trial Court

on the basis of pleadings framed the issues. Parties

adduced their evidence. By Judgment/decree dated

03.07.1984, the Trial  Court decreed the appellants’

suit.  

2

6. The respondents felt aggrieved and filed appeal

before  the  Single  Bench  of  the  High  Court.  By

judgment/decree dated 30.10.1998, the Single Judge

allowed  the  respondents’  appeal  and  while  setting

aside  of  the  judgment/decree  of  the  Trial  Court

dismissed the appellants’ suit.  

7. The  appellant  felt  aggrieved  and  filed  Letters

Patent  Appeal  before  the  Division  Bench.  By

impugned order,  the  Division Bench dismissed  the

appeal giving rise to filing of this appeal before this

Court by way of special leave.   

8. The  short  question,  which  arises  for

consideration in this appeal, is whether the Division

Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing

the appellants’ Letters Patent Appeal.

3

9.  Heard Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, learned counsel for

the  appellants  and  Ms.  Jyoti  Parasher,  learned

counsel for the respondents.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and  on  perusal  of  the  record  of  the  case,  we  are

constrained  to  allow  the  appeal,  set  aside  the

impugned order and remand the case to the Division

Bench of the High Court for deciding the LPA afresh

on merits in accordance with law.

11. The impugned order reads as under:

“This  L.P.A.  coming  on  for  hearing  on Thursday  the  fifteen  day  April,  2004  upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the order of the  Honourable  Mr.  Justice  P.  Thangavel dated 30.10.98 and made in the exercise of the Special Appellate Jurisdiction of the High Court in A.S. No. 630 of 1984 and all other papers  material  to  this  case,  and  upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T.M. Hariharan, Advocate  for  the  Appellants  and  Mr.  K. Rakhunathan,  Advocate  for  Ist  respondent and steps not having been taken up to serve the  notice  to  the  Respondents  3  to  5  and having stood over for consideration till this day,  this  Court  doth  order  and  decree  as follows:

4

(i) That  the  judgment  and  Decree  dated 30.10.98  and  made  in  the  exercise  of  the Appellate  Jurisdiction  of  the  Hon’ble  High Court in A.S. No.630/1984 be and hereby are confirmed;  and the letters  patent  appeal  is dismissed; and

(ii) That there be no costs in this L.P.A.”

12.    The need to remand the case to the High Court

has occasioned for the reason that the Division Bench

dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs)

cursorily without dealing with any of the issues arising

in the case as also the arguments urged by the parties

in support of their case.   

13. Indeed,  in  the  absence  of  any  application  of

judicial  mind  to  the  factual  and  legal  controversy

involved  in  the  appeal  and  further  without  even

mentioning the factual narration of the case set up by

the parties, the findings of the two Courts as to how

they dealt with the issues arising in the case in their

respective  jurisdiction  and  without  there  being  any

5

discussion,  appreciation,  reasoning  and  categorical

findings  on  the  issues  and why  the  findings  of  two

Courts below deserve to be upheld or reversed, while

dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light

of legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult

for  this  Court  to sustain such order  of  the Division

Bench.  In our opinion, the disposal of the LPA by the

Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to be

in conformity with the requirements of Order 41 Rule

31  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  1908(hereinafter

referred to as “the Code”).

14. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on

the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every

case  which  must  contain  the  narration  of  the  bare

facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues

arising the case, the submissions urged by the parties,

the legal  principles applicable to the issues involved

6

and the reasons in support of the findings on all the

issues  in  support  of  its  conclusion.  It  is  really

unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in

mind this principle while disposing of the appeal and

passed a  cryptic  and unreasoned order.  Such order

undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it

deprived  them to  know  the  reasons  as  to  why  one

party  has  won  and  other  has  lost.  We  can  never

countenance  the  manner  in  which  such  order  was

passed by the High Court which has compelled us to

remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the

appeal afresh on merits.  

15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow

the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand

the case to the Division Bench of the High Court for

deciding  the  appeal  afresh  on  merits  in  accordance

with law keeping in view our observations made supra.

7

16. We,  however,  make  it  clear  that  we  have

refrained from making any observation on merits  of

the controversy having formed an opinion to remand

the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned

above.  The  High  Court  would,  therefore,  decide  the

appeal,  uninfluenced  by  any  of  our  observations,

strictly  in  accordance  with  law.  Since  the  appeal  is

quite  old,  we  request  the  High  Court  to  ensure

expeditious disposal of the appeal.   

17. The  appeal  is  accordingly  allowed.  Impugned

order is set aside with the aforesaid directions.

                                            ….………………………………..J         (R.K. AGRAWAL)

       ………..………………………………J.      (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

New Delhi, February 15, 2018

8