Nagaraja Setty N.V. and Another vs H.N. Krishnamurthy @ Maddurappa Since Deceased by L.Rs.

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.-This is a defendants revision against the peremptory order dated 24-3-1987 passed on I.A. VII in O.S. No. 812 of 1981 in the court of the 7th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

On behalf of the defendants, an application was made purporting to be one under Order 18 C.P.C. requesting the court to recall the plaintiff''s witnesses 1,2 and 3 and subject them to cross-examination by defendant''s Counsel. It appears that on the dates those witnesses were examined, the Counsel appearing tor the defendants did not cross, examine and subsequently retired from the case. It was in that circumstance that the application had been filed on behalf of the defendants that has been summarily rejected stating that there was no merit in I.A. VII as follows: "examined today PWs. 1 and 2, I.A. VII dismissed, Arguments by 26/3."

Apart from the order not making any sense, it is imperative that every judicial order must be supported by some reason, however brief the reason may be.

Specific provision is made for recalling the witnesses if the court is moved to exercise its judicial discretion and pass an order granting the prayer made in the application or refusing it. It cannot peremptorily dismiss an application without assigning reasons. Even the High Courts are asked to give reasons for their orders dismissing any matters.

In the view I have expressed, the order under revision is set aside. The learned City Civil Judge is directed to consider the application on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

Revision petition is allowed but there will be no order as to costs as respondent is not in any way responsible for the dismissal of I.A. VII.

Petition allowed.