2019 INSC 0347
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