Basant Sawhney v. Ashvinder Chopra & Ors.

1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 115 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] seeking to challenge an order dated 07.10.2024 passed by Ld. District Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner (Defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court) has been dismissed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 31.01.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the plaint and the Application as well as the previous plaint have been placed on record.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner [hereinafter referred to as the “Application”] has been dismissed, despite the objections that were taken in the Application by the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that several grounds were raised in the Application including that the matter in issue in the current suit is substantially an issue in a previously instituted suit, and that previously instituted suit is pending adjudication before another Court. It is submitted that the ground that the Respondent/Plaintiff has not affixed adequate Court fee on the plaint has also not been dealt with. 3.[1] Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff on the other hand submits that so far as concerns the ground urged under Section 10 of the CPC, the Petitioner/Defendant has already conceded the said ground, and thus, no finding on that ground was requisite.

4. An examination of the Impugned Order shows that the Impugned Order in paragraph 3 discusses two grounds of the Application. The grounds include of res sub-judice contending a suit on same cause of action is pending and second ground being the under-valuation of suit. The Impugned Order does set out that the ground under Section 10 of the CPC (sub-judice) do not survive in view of the suit being partly decreed by order dated 01.04.2024 passed in the second proceedings being CS No.241/2022 captioned Basant Sawhney & Anr. v. Jagmeet Singh Chopra.

5. On the ground taken by the Petitioner of under-valuation of the plaint also, the learned Trial Court has found that this is a subject matter of trial and hence cannot be decided in an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. However, the Impugned Order is absolutely bereft of any reasons. Other than setting out that the cause of action is different and that the objection “is not much of relevance” and no finding has been given. It is apposite to set out the paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Impugned Order below:

6. It is settled law that a judicial decision or order must record reasons since these reassure that the discretion meant to be exercised by the Court has been exercised on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. The insistence on reasoning is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. In addition, reasons in support of the decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. This has been aptly explained by the Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.1, where the Supreme Court has held that recording of reasons is necessary as justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done as well. The relevant extract of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. case is set out herein below: “47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decisionmaker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decisionmaking justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”.” [Emphasis supplied]

7. In Maya Devi (D) Through Lrs vs Raj Kumari Batra (D) Through Lrs. & Ors[2], the Supreme Court recognised the importance of recording of reasons in cases where an order is subject to further appeal. The Court held that where an order is subject to further appeal, it is necessary to set out reasons as the appellate court or authority in their appellate jurisdiction ought to have the advantage of examining the reasons that prevailed with the court or the authority passing such order impugned in the appeal. The relevant extract of Maya Devi (D) Through Lrs. case is set out herein below: