Karnataka High Court
U. Ahmed vs Smt. Y.C. Saraswathi on 31 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: ILR1999KAR3513, 1999(6)KARLJ158
Author: S.R. Venkatesha Murthy
Bench: S.R. Venkatesha Murthy
ORDER
1. This revision is against an order dated 29-8-1997 which reads as follows:
"Objections filed-Heard and application is allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application. For evidence by 15.9".
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order is not a speaking order, that none of the objections raised by the revision petitioner has been considered by the Court and the order therefore is liable to be set aside. The respondent is stated to have filed two petitions for eviction against the petitioner and another in respect of different portion of the same property. The revision petitioner opposed the application on various grounds.
3. The respondent's Counsel sought to support the order on the ground that the consolidation of cases for purpose of disposal by common order on the ground that the evidence of the landlord is common for both. In G. Vasudeva Murthy v Y. Narasimhachar and Another, Naray-ana Pai, J., (as he then was) has observed as follows:
"3. There never has been any doubt that the orders of subordinate Courts which are either subject to appeal or subject to revision by this Court should contain a sufficient statement of the contentions of the parties and the reasons in support of the conclusions of the Courts, the reason for the said rule is quite obvious, viz., that it is part of the duty of Courts to assist superior Courts also in coming to conclusions on appeals or revisions directed against their orders".
4. It is clear that an order that is liable to be challenged in revision or an appeal must contain the relevant facts, including objection raised, with the reason and decision. The object is to enable the Appellate Court-Revisional Court to examine the decision for its validity.
5. In the instant case, the order cannot measure up to the basic requirements of an order and cannot therefore be regarded as an order. The order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made herein. Hence, the revision is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.