Patna High Court
Anita Kumari @ Anita Devi vs Sri Anand Shankar Singh And Ors on 16 January, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1913 of 2017
In
CIVIL REVISION No.120 of 2017
======================================================
Anita Kumari @ Anita Devi wife of Dr. Pranay Raj Sharan Sinha resident of
B - 404, Charminar Apartment, Road No. 12, Rajendra Nagar, P.S.
Kadamkuan, District - Patna - 800016.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sri Anand Shankar Singh son of not known to petitioner
2. Jyoti Shankar Singh son of Anand Shankar Singh
3. Niti Shankar Singh son of Anand Shankar Singh
4. Sandhya Devi daughter of Anand Shankar Singh
5. Chitra Devi daughter of Anand Shankar Singh
6. Anuradha Singh daughter of Anand Shankar Singh
7. Anju Kumari daughter of Anand Shankar Singh All residents of Bag Bera
Colony, Quarter No. 1, Block No. 94/2, Road No. 3 near Kunwar Singh
Maidan, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.
8. Sri Rana Ram Singh son of late Raghubir Singh of mohalla Ramji Chak
Digha, P.O. Bataganj, P.S. Digha, District Patna.
9. Sri Bikram Kumar son of Sri Narendra Kumar resident of village Chamgarh,
P.O. Jitapur, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura.
10. Smt. Panwati Singh wife of Sri Gadadhar Prasad resident of village and P.O.
Balua, P.S. Brahampur, District Bhojpur, present residence 252, New
Patliputra Colony, P.S. Patliputra, District Patna.
11. Kumar Anil Singh Son of Late Satya Narayan Singh, Secretary of M/s
1. Nirala Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., resident of Ekawana Kothi, Keshri
Nagar P.O. Keshri Nagar, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, Patna.
12. Dr. Bibha Singh, Wife of late Umeshwar Prasad Singh Resident of
1. Shivalayam Kutir, Keshari Nagar Road, P.O.- Keshari Nagar, P.S. Patliputra
District- Patna-24
12. Sumi Singh, D/o of late Umeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Shivalayam
2. Kutir, Keshari Nagar Road, P.O.- Keshari Nagar, P.S. Patliputra District-
Patna-24
12. Anurag Singh, Son of late Umeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Shivalayam
3. Kutir, Keshari Nagar Road, P.O.- Keshari Nagar, P.S. Patliputra District-
Patna-24
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S. P. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Adv.
For the Resp. 1st set: : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shailender Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1913 of 2017 dt.16-01-2025
2/6
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-01-2025
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents 1st set.
02. The petitioner has challenged the order dated
20.06.2017
passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Patna in Title Suit
No. 512 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the petition filed on
behalf of the respondents 1st set for substitution of legal heirs of
the sole plaintiff in title suit has been allowed.
03. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the sole plaintiff in Title Suit No. 512
of 2012 died on 18.04.2015 and two petitions have been filed on
15.07.2015 and 02.07.2016, respectively for substitution of the
legal heirs of sole plaintiff, Leela Devi, in her place. Learned
senior counsel further submits that the petition dated 15.07.2015
could not be considered as in the said petition only the husband
and sons of the deceased-plaintiff had been sought to be
substituted in place of sole plaintiff whereas her daughters were
not named as legal representatives. Thereafter, on 02.07.2016,
another petition was filed for substitution of the daughters of the
deceased plaintiff along with the persons already named in the
petition dated 15.07.2015. But the said application has been filed
without any application for setting aside the abatement which
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1913 of 2017 dt.16-01-2025
3/6
had already taken place. Learned senior counsel further submits
that the learned trial court did not consider the fact that
abatement has already taken place and allowed the application in
cryptic manner by just mentioning that limitation is condoned
and substitution petition is allowed in the light of facts discussed.
Such orders could not be sustained. Learned senior counsel
referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mahant Niranjan Dass v. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak
Committee, reported in AIR 1992 SC 492, wherein it has been
held that when there is knowledge of death, the application filed
beyond 90 days of the date of knowledge would result in
abatement of the appeal after death of the sole appellant.
04. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents-1st set submits that there is no infirmity in the
impugned order and the same needs to be sustained. Learned
counsel further submits that, in fact, first application was filed on
15.07.2015 by the husband and sons of the deceased plaintiff and
it was well within time and there was no question of abatement
taking place. Subsequently, another application was filed on
02.07.2016 and the said application was supported with a petition
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay, if any. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter on
03.12.2016, another petition for setting aside the abatement has
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1913 of 2017 dt.16-01-2025
4/6
been filed, which was replied by the petitioner. So, it could not
be said that there was no abatement petition on record. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner has been trying to deny
the filing of the petition for substitution dated 15.07.2015 by
placing the fact that the petition for substitution was filed on
02.07.2016, which is not correct. Learned counsel further
submits that the prayer in original application dated 15.07.2015
was for substitution on behalf of the husband and two sons of the
deceased-plaintiff whereas the second application dated
02.07.2016 was filed for substitution by adding the names of
respondent nos. 4 to 7 in the array of parties as legal heirs of
deceased-plaintiff though the application for substitution was
already on record and it is a wrong submission that there was no
prayer for substitution in the said petition. Thus, learned counsel
for the respondents 1st set submits that there is no need to
interfere with the impugned order.
05. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
06. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident
that though the learned trial court has mentioned about the dates
on which the applications for substitution have been filed, the
impugned order does not mention anything about the petition
dated 03.12.2016 purportedly filed for setting aside the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1913 of 2017 dt.16-01-2025
5/6
abatement. The impugned order is conspicuously silent on the
aspect of abatement or even the details of delay which was
considered and condoned. It is, therefore, evident that the
impugned order is a cryptic order which does not show any
application of judicial mind and being a completely non-speaking
order, such order could not be sustained.
07. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj
Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC
4664, has held that the reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion.
08. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed
Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, has held that reasons
in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A
pretense of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated
with a valid decision-making process.
09. The decision in Kranti Associates Private
Limited (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stresses upon the
importance of reasoned judicial orders and have discussed
elaborately why reasoning is the soul and heart of the justice.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the order of the
learned trial court is without recording the reasons in support of
conclusion arrived at and failure to record the reasons would
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1913 of 2017 dt.16-01-2025
6/6
make the orders unsustainable. Not recording the reasons in fact
amounts to denial of justice whether it is by an administrative
authority, quasi judicial body or a judicial body. The aforesaid
authorities could not pass orders without assigning reasons in
support of their conclusion more so if it is an order by a judicial
authority.
10. In such view of the matter, without going into the
merits of the case, the impugned order dated 20.06.2017 passed
in Title Suit No. 512 of 2012 by the learned Sub Judge-I, Patna is
set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned trial court for
consideration afresh and both the parties are at liberty to raise all
issues before learned trial court which is directed to pass a
reasoned and speaking order after hearing the parties.
11. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.01.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link