unreasoned order is liable to be set aside = every judicial or/and quasi­judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which 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.

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