2010 (8) TMI 1144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Copyright Act. The petitioner filed written statement and controverted the averments made in the suit by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC for raising certain objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. The respondent did not file reply to the application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, vide order dated 26.10.2009, the learned Judge dismissed the application without going into the objections raised in the application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, the 1earned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had raised three contentions before the learned Judge, namely that although the suit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns which were raised before her. The learned Judge has merely, quoted a part of Section 134 of the Trademark Act without drawing any conclusion from the said quotation. It is, indeed, surprising that the order has been passed in such highly cryptic manner. 7. Considering the fact that an order passed under order 7 Rule 11 CPC is revisable before this court, the least that is expected from a learned Judge is that he/she would pass a speaking order. It is imperative for this Court to know the reasoning of the Judge for having dismissed, or for having allowed an application. In the absence of the reasoning, both the litigant and this Court are left groping in the dark. A non-speaking order not only diminishes the faith of the people in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. TO subserve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the courts should record reasons for their conclusion, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing. The Supreme court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper ad....