Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
FALIJA SINGH v.
JASPAL KAUR APRIL 22, 1996
IDR. A.S. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.f.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
c
Section 60(ccc)-Plea of 11011-attacliability of residential house.1-Execllli11g Cowt as well as High Cowt not dealing with the question-Held, High Coiat oug/lt to have assigned reasons for disniissing the civil revision petition-Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and n1ini111ises chances of arbitrariness and the higher fonun can test the correctness of those reasons-Matter ren1anded lo High Corut for disposal in accordance ~vith law after hewing pmties-No opinion expressed on the nwits of the case.
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7559 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.91 Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 2064 of 1991.
of the Punjab &
Mahabir Singh for the Appellants. R.K. Kapoor, S.K. Srivastava, P. Verma and Anis Ahmed Khan for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was deHvered : Leave. granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The appellant had raised a specific plea in the executing court regarding the non-attachability of his residential house in view of the provisions of Section 60(ccc) C.P.C. The executing court has not dealt with the issue and the High Court, also did not deal with that question and dismissed the civil revision petition by one word "dismissed''. In our
FAUJA SINGH v. JASP AL KAUR opinion, since the parties were present before the High Court in the civil revision, on the plainest consideration of justice, it should have assigned reasons for dismissing the civil revision petition against the order of the executing court. The absence of reasons has deprived this court to know the circumstances which weighed. with the High Court to dismiss the revision petition in limine. We say it with respect, that it was an unsatisfactory method of disposal of the revision petition. The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever, brief in support of its conclusion is too obvious to be reiterated. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes, or at any rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. The order of the High Court dismissing the civil revision petition, in-limine, thus, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and r~mand the civil revision petition No. 2064/91 to the High Court for its disposal in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. We, however, clarify that we .are expressing no opinion on the merits of the civil revision petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs. G.N.
Appeal allowed.
c