Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
For The vs Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity ... on 17 May, 2013
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1 tm 17.5.13 C.O. 1499 of 2013 With C.O. 1498 of 2013 Mr. Supratick Roy ... For the petitioner Mr. Prabal Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee ... For the petitioner These two revisional applications are taken up together for the purpose of convenience.
C.O. 1499 of 2013 is filed assailing an order no. 2 dated April 3, 2013 passed by learned District Judge-In- Charge, Alipore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 156 of 2013 by which an ad interim order of injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute till May 3, 2013 is passed.
C.O. 1498 of 2013 is filed assailing an order no. 2 dated April 3, 2013 passed by learned District Judge-In- Charge, Alipore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 155 of 2013 by which an ad interim order of injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute till May 3, 2013 is passed.
On perusal of both the orders impugned in the aforesaid revisional applications it appears that the court of appeal below has passed an order of injunction in the form of status quo without recording any reasons.
It is settled legal proposition that an order, bereft of any reasons, is lifeless and absence of reasons renders 2 the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before the higher forum.
The apex court in case of Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732 held para 42 "41. Reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum
42. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is a 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 rejeced."
This court therefore finds that the orders impugned in both the revisional applications suffer from infirmity and/or illegality as no reasons are recorded by the court of appeal below. The same are hereby set aside.
At this juncture, Mr. Prabal Kr. Mukherjee, learned advocate submits that if the main injunction application 3 filed before the trial court is directed to be disposed of, it would shorten the litigation and also minimize the time.
Mr. Mitra did not oppose such prayer. Mr. Mukherjee has handed over the copy of the plaint as well as the injunction application filed in the trial court in T.S No. 139 of 2013 and T.S. No. 140 of 2013 upon the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
The petitioner is directed to file the written objection to the application for injunction before the trial court within seven days from date.
Reply, if any, be filed within three days thereafter. The trial is directed to dispose of the said application for injunction within fortnight from the date of communication of this order.
In view of the order passed hereinabove, Misc. Appeal nos. 155 & 156 of 2013 have become infructuous.
The revisional application is, thus, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon, J.)