Allowed¶26

Mohamad Samsad Alam v. Suresh Paswan

Patna HC8 Aug 2025C.Misc./543/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; C.Misc. No.543 of 2019; decided 08-08-2025; Arun Kumar Jha J. Keywords: cryptic order; non-speaking order; duty to give reasons; reasoned judicial order; denial of justice; rubber-stamp reasons; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Order VIII Rule 6(A) CPC; amendment application; plaint alteration; partition suit; Gaya; Partition Suit No. 168 of 2013/706 of 2013; remand for fresh decision within one month; Raj Kishore Jha 2003 (11) SCC 519; Kranti Associates (2010) 9 SCC 496; petition allowed; impugned order set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.02.2019 of the Sub Judge-IV, Gaya set aside without going into merits; matter remanded to the learned trial court to decide the petitioner's application dated 27.09.2018 afresh within one month from receipt/production of a copy of this Court's order.

Mohamad Samsad Alam Vs Suresh Paswan — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 of the Sub Judge-IV, Gaya rejecting the petitioner's application is sustainable despite being a cryptic, non-speaking order rendered without recorded reasons.

¶18

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, the Court found truth in learned counsel's submission that the order was cryptic, the trial court having dismissed the application after merely citing certain authorities and their paragraphs.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Orders disposing of an application without recording reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at are unsustainable; a non-speaking and cryptic order without assigning reasons may not be allowed to stand.

¶22

Key takeaways

Not recording reasons amounts to denial of justice, whether by an administrative authority, quasi-judicial body or judicial body; a judicial authority in particular must pass orders assigning reasons in support of its conclusion.ratio¶22
Without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Sub Judge-IV, Gaya in Partition Suit No. 168 of 2013/706 of 2013 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the learned trial court to decide the petitioner's application dated 27.09.2018 afresh within one month from receipt/production of a copy of this Court's order.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.543 of 2019, Patna High Court (Arun Kumar Jha, J), oral order dated 08-08-2025 — allowed. The petitioner, defendant no. 5 in Partition Suit No. 168 of 2013/706 of 2013 before the Sub Judge-IV, Gaya, challenged the order dated 05.02.2019 rejecting his application dated 27.09.2018 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 and Order VIII Rule 6(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Finding the impugned order cryptic and non-speaking — the trial court having dismissed the application after merely citing certain authorities — and relying on Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003 (11) SCC 519 (reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion) and Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 (reasons must be cogent, clear and succinct; 'rubber-stamp reasons' are no substitute for valid decision-making), the Court held that failure to record reasons renders an order unsustainable and amounts to denial of justice, and that a non-speaking, cryptic order without assigned reasons may not be allowed to stand. Without entering into the merits, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court to decide the application afresh within one month of receipt/production of the copy of this order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.543 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Mohamad Samsad Alam Son of Wasarat Hussain Resident of Village-Jehana, P.S.-Anti, P.O.-Daurawan, District-Gaya (Bihar).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Suresh Paswan Son of Late Ram Briksh Paswan Resident of Village-Jehana, P.S. Anti, P.O. Daurawan, District-Gaya (Bihar).

¶7

Naresh Paswan Son of Late Ram Briksh Paswan Resident of Village-Jehana, P.S. Anti, P.O. Daurawan, District-Gaya (Bihar).

¶8

Awadhesh Paswan Son of Late Ram Briksh Paswan Resident of VillageJehana, P.S. Anti, P.O. Daurawan, District-Gaya (Bihar).

¶9

Hiramani Devi Wife of Rajendra Paswan Resident of Village-Mahasi, P.S. Obra,District-Gaya (Bihar).

¶10

Lalmuni Devi Wife of Nand Lal Paswan Resident of Village-Koiri Bigha, P.S.-Gurua, District-Gaya (Bihar),

¶11

Kavita Devi Wife of Awadhesh Paswan Resident of Village-Jehana, P.S. Anti, P.O. Daurawan, District-Gaya (Bihar).

¶12

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek, Advocate For the Respondent/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

6 08-08-2025

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite a number of opportunities, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who is defendant no. 5 before the learned trial court for setting aside the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by learned Sub JudgeIV, Gaya in Partition Suit No. 168 of 2013/706 of 2013 whereby

¶16

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.543 of 2019(6) dt.08-08-2025 2/4

¶17

and whereunder application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 and Order VIII Rule 6(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

¶18

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is completely cryptic order whereunder mentioning the submission of the parties, the application of the petitioner has been rejected stating it to be not maintainable.

¶19

On perusal of the impugned order, I find truth in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears from the impugned order that after citing certain authorities and their paragraphs, the learned trial court went on to dismiss the petition of the petitioner dated 27.09.2018.

¶20

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar And Ors. , reported in 2003 (11) SCC 519 has held that the reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless and for this reason the approach of the learned Sub Judge-IV, Gaya could not be appreciated. 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

¶21

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.543 of 2019(6) dt.08-08-2025 3/4

¶22

succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. The aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court stress 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 orders disposing of the application of the petitioner without recording reasons in support of conclusion arrived at in the order and failure to record the reasons would make the orders unsustainable. Not recording the reasons in fact amounts to denial of justice whether it is an administrative authority, quasi judicial body or a judicial body. The aforesaid authority could not pass orders without assigning reasons in support of their conclusion, more so, a judicial authority. A non-speaking and cryptic order without assigning reasons may not be allowed to stand.

¶23

Hence, without going into the merits of the case, impugned order dated 05.02.2019 passed by learned Sub JudgeIV, Gaya in Partition Suit No. 168 of 2013/ 706 of 2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial court for deciding the application dated 27.09.2018 filed by the petitioner for consideration afresh within a period of one month from the

¶24

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.543 of 2019(6) dt.08-08-2025 4/4

¶25

date of receipt/production of a copy of this Court.

¶26

Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.

¶27

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶28

balmukund/-

¶29

Mohamad Samsad Alam v. Suresh Paswan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamad Samsad Alam v. Suresh Paswan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs Rajendra Prasad and Ors.

Most. Prabhawati Kunwar Vs Anil Kumar Pandey

Kumar Samir @ Kumar Sameer, Vs Anisha Srivastava

Dr. Birendra Prasad Saha Vs Ghanshyam Kumar Yadav

Firoz Alam Vs Md. Suleman

Pradeep Kumar Pandey @ Pradeep Kr. Pandey Vs Alok Kumar Pandey