Justice Ajit Kumar, Allahabad High Court
Mere Reference To Arguments Not Sufficient; Judge Should Also Meticulously Deal With Arguments: Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court set aside an Order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and observed that it is expected that a Judge would not only apply his judicial mind to issues raised but also deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties very meticulously to arrive at findings which would reflect a sound judicial approach.
The Petitioner filed a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Cause in a Suit as well as the order dismissing his revision-petition.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar asserted, “A mere reference to the arguments of the respective parties does not suffice the need required, for proper adjudication of a lis.”
Advocate Prakhar Tandon represented the Petitioner while Advocate Shiv Kumar Yadav represented the Respondent.
The sole arguments advanced by the petitioner’s Counsel was that the Revisional Court did not apply its mind at all to the arguments advanced by respective parties before it and after recording their arguments simply concluded that he did not find any error or illegality in the order assailed.
The Counsel for the Respondent-Landlord conceded that the recital as contained in paragraph 11 of the judgment couldn’t be said to be an adjudication as a result of the application of mind by the presiding judge. It was requested that the matter be remitted to the court below for a decision afresh on merit.
The Bench found that the concerned judge had not rendered at all due application of his mind which was very much required by a judge adjudicating a lis.
The Bench further clarified that every judge who has to adjudicate the points on the issue raised in the matter is not only required to refer to the arguments advanced on behalf of respective parties but also to deal with the same to conclude as to whether the judgment assailed is suffering from any error of law or facts or there is some gross error in assessment and analysis of the evidence by the court whose order has been challenged.
“It is well-settled principle that revision has facets of an appeal and therefore, when the revision petition is preferred for there is no appeal available under the relevant statue, it is a duty cast upon the judge to look into all aspects of the matter from both the points of view of the revision applicant as well as respondents in whose favour the decree has been passed”, the Bench held while also adding, “From a judge in the rank of Addl. District and Sessions Judge it is expected that he would not only apply his judicial mind to issues raised but also deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties very meticulously to arrive at findings which would reflect a sound judicial approach of a varied and wide experience of such a judicial officer.”
Thus, setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench directed the District Judge, to assign this revision petition again to the same Additional District and Sessions Judge if still posted in his judgeship.
Cause Title: Smt. Munni Devi v. Smt. Shashikala Pandey (Neutral Citation 2024:AHC:197105)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Prakhar Tandon
Respondent: Advocate Shiv Kumar Yadav