Allowed

Kamlakant Prasad Sinha and Anr. v. Smt Manibala and Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Jan 2020WPC/4318/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a writ petition quashing a non-speaking order of the Commissioner that dismissed a title appeal without discussing marked exhibits. The case was remanded per the principles in Central Board of Trustees v. M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. requiring reasoned orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dated 08.06.2015 was set aside and the matter remitted back to the Commissioner to pass a fresh judgment.

Kamlakant Prasad Sinha and Anr. Vs Smt Manibala… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

1 W.P.(C) No.4318 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4318 of 2015

¶3

¶4

1.Kamlakant Prasad Sinha

¶5

2.Sashikant Sinha

¶6

Both sons of late Parmeshwari Prasad Sinha and resident of Gilanpara, P.S.-Dumka(Town), P.O. & District-Dumka (Jharkhand)

¶7

…. Defendants/Appellants/Petitioners

¶8

-- Versus --

¶9

1.Smt Manibala, widow of late Sadashiv Prasad

¶10

2.Sameer Kumar Sinha

¶11

3.Praveer Kumar Sinha

¶12

4.Dharmveer Kumar Sinha,

¶13

Sl.No.2 to 5 all sons of late Sadashiv Prasad

¶14

Sl.No.1 to 4 all residents of Babupara, Dumka, P.S.-Dumka Town, P.O. & District-Dumka (Jharkhand)

¶15

….Plaintiffs/Respondents 1^st Party/Respondents

¶16

5.Nirmala Devi, wife of Sukhdeo Prasad, resident of Babupara, Dumka, P.S.-Dumka Town, P.O. & District- Dumka (Jharkhand) 6.Manorama Sinha, wife of Jogendra Prasad Sinha, Mohalla-Kumharpara, Dumka, P.S.-Dumka Town, P.O. & District- Dumka (Jharkhand) 7.Kumidini Prasad, wife of late Raj Kishora Prasad, resident of Shastri Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Giridih, District – Giridih

¶17

…. Defendants 2^nd Party/ Respondents 2^nd Party/ Proforma Respondents

¶18

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶19

For the Petitioners	:	--- Mr. Rajiv Mr. Niraj	Sinha, Advocate Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents	:	Mr. S. N. Mr. S. K.	Das, Advocate Murtty, Advocate

¶20

10/ Dated : 08^th January, 2020

¶21

Heard Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for

¶22

the petitioners and Mr. S. N. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶23

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 08.06.2015 passed by learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Title Appeal No.38 of 1985-86.

¶24

2 W.P.(C) No.4318 of 2015

¶25

Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this matter was earlier travelled up to this Court in W.P.(C) No.801 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No.1876 of 2008 whereby the learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka was directed to decide the appeal on merit and in accordance with law after taking into account the exhibited public document. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel further submits that the learned Commissioner though marked the public documents produced by the appellants as Ext. E1 to E23 and when these documents were marked as exhibits on the same day without discussing the documents dismissed the appeal by a non-speaking order and upheld the order of the Settlement Officer dated 10.11.1980 as passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.37 of 1971 as contained in Annexure-6.

¶26

This Court has perused the order dated 08.06.2015 and finds that there is no discussion of the documents marked as Ext. E1 to Ext. E23.

¶27

Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision rendered in “Central Board of Trustees v. M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd.” reported in ( 2018) 8 SCC 443 . Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

¶28

“ 13 . Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the findings impugned in the writ petition deserve to be upheld or reversed, while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for

¶29

3 W.P.(C) No.4318 of 2015

¶30

this Court to sustain such order of the Division Bench. The only expression used by the Division Bench in disposing of the appeal is “on due consideration”. It is not clear to us as to what was that due consideration which persuade the Division Bench to dispose of the writ petition because we find that in the earlier paragraphs only facts are set out.

¶31

14 . Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in our view has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. We can never countenance the manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits.”

¶32

On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. The Commissioner has marked the exhibits in view of the order of this Court.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the judgment dated 08.06.2015, this Court finds that

¶34

4 W.P.(C) No.4318 of 2015

¶35

although the Commissioner has marked the documents as Ext.E1 to E25, but there is no discussion about those documents in the impugned judgment. It is in the teeth of violation of earlier order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.801 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No.1876 of 2008 (supra). The impugned judgment will also not survive in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment passed in “Central Board of Trustees” (supra).

¶36

Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2015 is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka to pass a fresh judgment after providing opportunity of hearing to the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties in accordance with law.

¶37

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4318 of 2015 stands allowed and disposed of.

¶38

SI/,

Kamlakant Prasad Sinha and Anr. v. Smt Manibala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlakant Prasad Sinha and Anr. v. Smt Manibala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Sharma Vs Mostt Nirmala Devi

Manoj Das Vs Nagendra Pathak

The Divisional Manager the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Girish Chandra Das and Ors.

Ms Shanti Udyog through Its Authorized Representative Daulat Sablok Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Manorama Devi Vs the Territory Manager Retail Bpcl and Ors.

Gopal Ram Agarwal Vs the Union of India and Ors.