Speaking order requirement: appellate authority's non-reasoned order was set aside and remanded for fresh decision.

An appellate order must independently frame the controversy and give reasons dealing with the facts and contentions; a bare statement that the matter is no longer res integra, without analysis, is not a speaking order. Here, the lower appellate authority had merely reproduced the remand order and failed to address the dispute on its own reasoning. The order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by a reasoned order after framing the issue and giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was a speaking order and therefore sustainable in law.

Analysis: The lower appellate authority had reproduced the earlier remand order and then stated that the issue was no longer res integra, without framing the issue or independently dealing with the facts, contentions, or the basis on which the earlier decision was relied upon. An order that does not disclose independent reasoning on the controversy before the authority cannot be treated as a speaking order.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded to the lower appellate authority for a fresh, reasoned decision after framing the issue and granting reasonable opportunity to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the procedural ground of absence of a proper speaking order, and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate order must independently frame and decide the issues with reasons; a bare conclusion that the matter is no longer res integra, without analysis of the facts and grounds, is not a speaking order and cannot stand.

---