The Delhi High Court in Phulgita Devi V. Krishan Kumar & Ors. observed that orders devoid of reasoning cannot be termed as good orders and are liable to be set aside in the revisional jurisdiction.
The case in brief is that the revision petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge an order dated 18.07.2018 vide which an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by the Court.
Order VII Rule 11 sets out various cases whereby a plaint can be rejected. It reads thus:
“11. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—
where it does not disclose a cause of action;
where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.”
In light of the facts of the case, it was observed by the Court that “Learned Trial Court vide the common order has decided several applications, including the present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The reasoning in a judicial order is the lifeline of any judicial order. The Judge while passing an order has to not only record the case of the parties but also must give reasons for reaching to a conclusion. Orders which are bereft of reasoning cannot be termed as good order and are liable to be set aside in the revisional jurisdiction. In the present case, the learned Judge while passing the order assailed herein has not given any reasoning at all for reaching to the conclusion and therefore it cannot sustain in the eyes of law.”