FAUJA SINGHversusJASPAL KAUR

A                                  FALIJA SINGH
                                          v.
                                  JASPAL KAUR

                                  APRIL 22, 1996

B                IDR. A.S. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.f.]

            Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

            Section 60(ccc)-Plea of 11011-attacliability of residential house.1-Ex-
    ecllli11g Cowt as well as High Cowt not dealing with the question-Held, High
c   Coiat oug/lt to have assigned reasons for disniissing the civil revision peti-
    tion-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.
D
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7559 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.91             of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 2064 of 1991.
E
            Mahabir Singh for the Appellants.

         R.K. Kapoor, S.K. Srivastava, P. Verma and Anis Ahmed Khan for
    the Respondents.

F           The following Order of the Court was deHvered :

            Leave. granted.

          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the
    record.
G
          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
H   dismissed the civil revision petition by one word "dismissed''. In our
                                        616
                      FAUJA SINGH v. JASP AL KAUR                          617

 opinion, since the parties were present before the High Court in the civil       A
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 unsatisfac-
                                                                                  B
tory 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 dismiss-
ing the civil revision petition, in-limine, thus, cannot be sustained. We,        c
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.                                                                         D
       The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs.

G.N.                                                         Appeal allowed.